CORRELATION BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE STUDENTS‟
FACEBOOK USE AND CO-CURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT
A Thesis
Submitted to the S...
ii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Student Affairs in Higher Educ...
iii
Title: Correlation between Undergraduate College Students‟
Facebook Use and Co-Curricular Involvement
Author: Christop...
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am so thankful for those who have played a role in my work on this thesis over
the last 15 months. Th...
v
I am delighted to thank Hannah, the most wonderful partner any researcher could
ask for. Hannah has been so incredibly s...
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
One THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………..1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………… 1
Fac...
vii
Chapter Page
Drinking and partying.…......….….….….….…........….….....49
Distraction......................................
viii
Chapter Page
Primary Analysis................................................................................... 90
C...
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Descriptive Statistics for Participants.......................................................
1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
This thesis describes a study to determine if a correlation exists between the level
and nature ...
2
technologies educationally and developmentally purposeful; most often, these attempts
have not been as successful as des...
3
active Facebook account (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; A. Smith, Rainie, &
Zickuhr, 2011). In one study, college...
4
purposeful activities (Evans et al., 2010).
The Relationship between Involvement and Facebook Use
Research has shown tha...
5
games and checking up on friends. There was also a negative correlation between time
spent on Facebook Chat and time spe...
6
being confined to their physical location or past placement (Martinez Aleman &
Wartman, 2009). This idea of technology p...
7
medium for others to share their activities happening on the physical campus. Within this
online community, all student ...
8
(Cotton, 2008; Junco, 2012; Junco & Chickering, 2010). With that in mind, there is a
need for specific research on the r...
9
students utilized spaces on campus such as the student union and recreational facilities.
The second was the Clubs and O...
10
2010). Students will exhibit increased levels of learning and personal development, since
students‟ level of involvemen...
11
administrators, students, and student affairs professionals will gain information that could
prove critical to making c...
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The previous chapter introduced college student Facebook use and co-curricular
involvemen...
13
The largest group of students was in the 15-23 age group, which made up over 59% of
enrolled college students (U.S. Dep...
14
distinguishing factor of digital natives is their high level of computer skill and
knowledge. The authors affirmed that...
15
expect their communications to occur online (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). Junco and
Mastrodicasa (2007) asserted this i...
16
Proliferation of Technology on Campus
The EDUCAUSE Core Data Service report (Arroway, Davenport, Xu, &
Updegrove, 2010)...
17
could access the Internet from their phone. Of those with internet access from their
phone, over 90% of respondents sai...
18
authors stated that student unions provided Wi-Fi in over 95% of the participating
institutions (Arroway et al., 2010)....
19
not equivalent to a high level of skill. Faculty, staff, and administrators have already
begun responding to this by in...
20
Involvement Theory
The theory of involvement originated from Pace‟s (1982) work (Astin, 1984;
Davis & Murrell, 1993; Ku...
21
in direct opposition with each other. The greatest benefits of involvement will only be
attained if students select the...
22
opportunities for social interactions among students and with professionals, with a
specific emphasis on facilitating f...
23
activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college and what institutions
do to induce students to pa...
24
outcome, Kuh (2009) conceived of engagement as a broad construct that incorporates
most aspects of the collegiate exper...
25
participation in a supportive campus environment (Kuh, 2009). On the other hand, the
definition of involvement – and th...
26
theory is useful in providing specific focus, since it is conceptualized only as a student
behavior in how time and ene...
27
campus, reported higher levels of satisfaction than commuters. These students reported
the highest levels of satisfacti...
28
institution, which showed that students who belonged to an organization reported the
most satisfaction with their colle...
29
activities designed to produce these gains” (p. 222). Involvement in co-curricular
activities has a direct impact on po...
30
interviewed showed signs of Cross‟ (1995) Internalization stage, the final stage after
Immersion-Emersion, and that the...
31
relationship, which showed an overall gain in critical thinking. The author stated that the
positive nature of involvem...
32
the Multi-Institutional Study on Leadership, Dugan et al. (2008) found that involvement
in specific peer interactions, ...
33
student persistence across institutional types. However, the authors noted that social
integration, and therefore invol...
34
factor of student persistence was level of involvement, specifically as it related to face-to-
face interaction among p...
35
time, psychic energy, and physical activity, for the pursuit of furthering the group‟s
purposes (Davis & Murrell, 1993;...
36
participants can spend involved in co-curricular activities. In this way, this form of
measurement is the most common w...
37
explicitly on the behavioral aspect of involvement.
Extracurricular Involvement Inventory (EII). The third measure of
i...
38
take advantage of personal and social opportunities. These scales measure topics
including campus facilities, clubs and...
39
in research conducted on involvement and the quality of student effort. Researchers
continue to use the CSEQ to measure...
40
cognitive development, and persistence to graduation. Student affairs professionals are
responsible for increasing stud...
41
individuals can use for social networking, where online communities of users develop
interpersonal relationships and sh...
42
For the second category of interacting with peers, Facebook users can conduct
another group of activities according to ...
43
report spending on the service every day. In a study conducted by Junco (2012) at a mid-
sized public northeastern inst...
44
Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) conducted a study at an urban institution of students‟
motivations for using Facebook...
45
access Facebook on their mobile device reported an overall increase in usage of the
service, though they recognized a d...
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement

2,674 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,674
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2012 thesis correlation between undergraduate college students facebook use and co curicular involvement

  1. 1. CORRELATION BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE STUDENTS‟ FACEBOOK USE AND CO-CURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Christopher Steven Weiss Indiana University of Pennsylvania May 2012
  2. 2. ii Indiana University of Pennsylvania School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Student Affairs in Higher Education We hereby approve the thesis of Christopher Steven Weiss Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts _____________ _________________________________________________ John W. Lowery, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Student Affairs in Higher Education, Advisor _____________ _________________________________________________ Holley A. Belch, Ph.D. Professor of Student Affairs in Higher Education _____________ _________________________________________________ John A. Mueller, Ed.D. Professor of Student Affairs in Higher Education ACCEPTED ____________________________________________ _____________________ Timothy P. Mack, Ph.D. Dean School of Graduate Studies and Research
  3. 3. iii Title: Correlation between Undergraduate College Students‟ Facebook Use and Co-Curricular Involvement Author: Christopher Steven Weiss Thesis Chair: Dr. John Wesley Lowery Thesis Committee Members: Dr. John Mueller Dr. Holley A. Belch This study determined if a correlation existed between college students‟ Facebook use and co-curricular involvement. While Facebook use has exploded in the past decade, research on how this phenomenon affects college students and student affairs professionals is limited. For the purpose of this study, Facebook use was quantified in terms of minutes of use, frequency of logging in, and services utilized; and involvement was measured by how much time and in what way students participated in co-curricular activities and utilized campus resources. A statistically significant, but weak, positive correlation was found between the amount of time participants‟ spent on Facebook the previous day and the number of hours per week they participated in activities outside of the classroom (r = .137, p < .05). Student affairs professionals should understand the results of this study in order to effectively promote student involvement in an environment dominated by Facebook use.
  4. 4. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am so thankful for those who have played a role in my work on this thesis over the last 15 months. This has been an extremely meaningful experience and journey, and my ability to complete this project would not have been possible without their support. As my thesis advisor, Dr. John Wesley Lowery has played an immense role in my work on this thesis. His countless hours of reading and revising, and ability to cut through my manuscripts to get me to explain what I really meant, have been invaluable to the work I have presented and my growth as a scholar. He has been an amazing teacher, support system, and role model in my academic growth, which has instilled in me the confidence and passion to continue to pursue my role as a scholar and researcher. I would like to thank the rest of my faculty committee, Dr. Holley Belch and Dr. John Mueller. They consistently pushed me to write clearer and more professionally. Dr. Mueller played an integral role in the selection and narrowing of my research topic. Dr. Belch provided her excellent detailed eye and high standards for implementing the style guide used in this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Reynol Junco for his support throughout my research. Dr. Junco was very gracious in letting me use his latest instrument. I highly valued his assistance with several questions that I had through my research process, and his positive feedback and genuine interest in my work were very motivational. I also must recognize the support of my friends and family, who have understood and supported me in every way. While I certainly did not give them enough of my time and energy while working on this thesis, I could not be more grateful to them for welcoming me back after this work was complete.
  5. 5. v I am delighted to thank Hannah, the most wonderful partner any researcher could ask for. Hannah has been so incredibly supportive, even though I usually chose to spend time on this thesis rather than with her. She never made me feel guilty for the work I was doing, and always showed that she valued it as much as I did. While she claims I would have been able to complete this thesis without her support, I can say with absolute certainty that without her I would have been miserable the entire time. For all the batches of cookies and cups of tea she made during long nights of writing and researching, I truly thank her for always standing by my side. I greatly anticipate our next adventure together, and every day I am inspired by what the future holds for us. Last, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to thank my supervisor, mentor, and friend Julene Pinto-Dyczewski, who in so many ways has been the most influential person to me over the last two years. Jules is by far the best student affairs professional and supervisor I have ever met, and exemplifies the perfect model of integrating theory into practice. Jules truly embodies the power of positive reinforcement and the critical role it plays in human development, interpersonal relationships, and educating students, and this thesis is an example of her success in encouraging me to complete this work. Jules has affected my overall growth and development as a professional and a person more than any other individual over the last two years. I am so grateful for her support in being flexible with my assistantship around the needs of this thesis, and all around for how much she has taught me these past two years, which I hope is reflected in this thesis. From the bottom of my heart, I truly thank all of these individuals. Not a moment goes by that I am not aware of how fortunate I am to have been surrounded by such amazing people who have helped me to accomplish so much.
  6. 6. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page One THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………..1 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………… 1 Facebook………………………………………………………………. 2 Involvement…………………………………………………………….3 The Relationship between Involvement and Facebook Use……………4 Negative correlation…. .....………………………………………4 Positive correlation ………………………………………………5 Research Questions ...………………………………………………...7 Significance…………………………………………………………….9 Summary………………………………………………………………11 Two LITERATURE REVIEW.……………………………………………..12 College Students……………….……………….……………………..12 Characteristics of the College Student Population……………….12 Millennial generation……………….………..………………13 Digital natives……………….……………….……………....13 Proliferation of Technology on Campus……………….………...16 Mobile use……………….……………….……………….….16 Campus support for technology……………….……………..17 Summary……………….……………….……………….……….18 College Student Involvement…............................…........................…19 Involvement Theory….….….….….….….….….….….….….…..20 Involvement vs. Engagement….….….….….….….….….….…...22 Benefits of Involvement….….….….….….….….….….….….….26 Satisfaction….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…26 Student development….….….….….….….….….….….….…28 Persistence….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….32 Measures of Involvement….….….….….….….….….….….……34 Hours of involvement….….….….….….….….….….….…... 35 National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) scales….…..36 Extracurricular Involvement Inventory (EII) ….….….….…..37 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ….……37 For the current study….….….….….….….….….….….….…39 Summary….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….……39 Facebook Use Among College Students….….….….….….….….…...40 Definitions and Contextualization….….….….….….….….….… 40 Services offered by Facebook….….….….….….….….….….41 College students‟ use of Facebook….….….….….….….…... 42 Mobile Facebook use….….….….….….….….….….….……44 Negative Outcomes Associated with Facebook Use….…….…... 45 Facebook depression….….….….….….….….….….….…….46 Narcissism….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….47 Stress….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….……49
  7. 7. vii Chapter Page Drinking and partying.…......….….….….….…........….….....49 Distraction................................................................................50 Positive Outcomes Associated with Facebook Use.......................50 Sharing information and opportunities.................................... 51 Transition to college................................................................ 52 Diversity...................................................................................53 Facebook therapy.....................................................................54 Social capital............................................................................55 Offline social life..................................................................... 57 Measures of Facebook Use............................................................58 Facebook Intensity Scale......................................................... 58 Net.Generation survey............................................................. 58 Junco‟s (2012) Facebook instrument.......................................59 For the current study................................................................60 Summary........................................................................................60 Facebook and Involvement....................................................................61 Negative Relationship....................................................................62 No Relationship............................................................................. 64 Foregger‟s (2008) study...........................................................64 Ericson‟s (2011) study.............................................................65 Positive Relationship..................................................................... 66 The Higher Education Research Institute‟s (HERI; 2007) analysis.....................................................................................66 Heiberger and Harper‟s (2008) study...................................... 67 Junco‟s (2012) study................................................................67 Summary........................................................................................68 Summary of Literature.......................................................................... 69 Conclusion.............................................................................................71 Three METHOD..............................................................................................72 Methodology..........................................................................................72 Sample...................................................................................................72 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................73 Instrumentation......................................................................................76 Facebook Instrument......................................................................76 College Student Experiences Questionnaire..................................77 Demographics................................................................................ 80 Procedures............................................................................................. 80 Data Analysis.........................................................................................81 Conclusion.............................................................................................82 Four RESULTS..............................................................................................83 Preliminary Analysis............................................................................. 83 Facebook Usage.............................................................................83 Involvement................................................................................... 88
  8. 8. viii Chapter Page Primary Analysis................................................................................... 90 Correlations between Facebook Use and Involvement..................90 Factor analysis......................................................................... 94 Controlling for Demographics.......................................................96 Conclusion.............................................................................................97 Five DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS.................................................98 Discussion of the Findings.................................................................... 99 Preliminary Findings......................................................................99 Facebook use............................................................................99 Co-curricular involvement.....................................................102 Primary Analysis..........................................................................104 Limitations...........................................................................................109 Implications.........................................................................................110 Implications for Theory ...............................................................110 Implications for Research ............................................................111 Implications for Practice .............................................................114 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................118 REFERENCES................................................................................................................120 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................133 Appendix A - Junco‟s (2012) Facebook Instrument....................................................133 Appendix B - College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) ...........................138 Appendix C - Demographic Data ................................................................................141 Appendix D - INFORMED CONSENT FORM ..........................................................144 Appendix E - Email Inviting Students to Participate ...................................................145 Appendix F - Institution Review Board Approval .......................................................146 Appendix G - CSEQ Item Usage Agreement ..............................................................147 Appendix H - Spearman‟s rho Correlations between Facebook Items ( N = 207) ......149
  9. 9. ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Descriptive Statistics for Participants.....................................................................75 2 Time Spent on Facebook among Participants.........................................................84 3 Number of Times Facebook was Checked among Participants..............................85 4 Frequency of Performing Facebook Activities among Participants.......................86 5 Involvement in Activities Outside of the Classroom among Participants..............89 6 Involvement Response among Participants............................................................90 7 Pearson‟s r Correlations between Level of Facebook Use and Involvement Measures..................................................................................................................90 8 Spearman‟s rho Correlations between Facebook Activities and Involvement Measures..................................................................................................................91 9 Rotated Component Matrix.....................................................................................91 10 Correlations between Facebook Activity Scales and Involvement Measures........96
  10. 10. 1 CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM This thesis describes a study to determine if a correlation exists between the level and nature of undergraduate college students‟ Facebook use and co-curricular involvement within the campus community. This chapter will provide an introduction of the role that Facebook and co-curricular involvement play in the lives of undergraduate college students, and will establish the key constructs and significance of the study for stakeholders. The second chapter will discuss a review of the literature, and describe previous research conducted on both variables. The third chapter will then discuss the methodology used to conduct the study, including the instrumentation used, procedures of determining the sample and administering the survey, and statistical analysis techniques. That will be followed by a presentation of the results from the data collection of the study in the fourth chapter. Finally, the fifth chapter will present a discussion of the results, including potential meanings, limitations of the study, and implications for future theory, research, and practice. Statement of the Problem College students have always found ways to connect with each other (Horowitz, 1988). For the past two decades, technology has provided some of the most popular new ways for students to connect (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). From the seemingly limitless opportunities of what it allows students to do, to the appeal of experimenting with new advanced devices, college students have always spent large amounts of time using technology (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Strange & Banning, 2001). Throughout this time, many professionals have worked to capitalize on this appeal and make these
  11. 11. 2 technologies educationally and developmentally purposeful; most often, these attempts have not been as successful as desired (Strange & Banning, 2001). The most recent evolution in technology that students have widely adopted is social media. Social media refers to websites and applications that individuals can use for social networking, where online communities of users develop interpersonal relationships and share user-generated content through a technological medium (Ericson, 2011; Junco & Chickering, 2010; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2010). The three most common examples of social media services on college campuses are Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Studies have found that as many as 90% of college students are frequent users of social media (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010); this usage may play a role in the ways in which students relate to and communicate with each other (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007; Upcraft, 2007). Facebook Facebook is a large social media service created in 2004, where users generate profiles to connect and stay in touch with their friends and acquaintances. It began as a small service limited to students at Harvard University, and shortly thereafter expanded to Stanford, Columbia, and Yale, with nearly 1 million active users by the end of its first year. As access expanded to all college and high school students by the end of 2005, there were over 6 million active users. Facebook allowed anyone to join in 2006, and reached more than 12 million active users (“Statistics,” 2012). In 2011, there were over 845 million users, 50% of which logged in to the service daily (“Statistics,” 2012). Facebook is by far the social media service of choice for most college students: several studies have reported that over 85% of college students have an
  12. 12. 3 active Facebook account (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; A. Smith, Rainie, & Zickuhr, 2011). In one study, college students on average used Facebook over 11.8 hours per week (Junco, 2012). Involvement Involvement is “the physical and psychological time and energy that students spend devoted to their college experience” (Astin, 1984, p. 235). When college students spend their time in educationally or developmentally purposeful activities on campus, they are spending their time productively involved. This definition focuses particularly on factors that facilitate development rather than the developmental process itself. Involvement theory is concerned solely with the behavior of involvement, and intentionally excludes the impact of involvement or students‟ perception of how it makes them feel (Astin, 1984; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). A high intensity of co-curricular involvement is evident when students are markedly committed enough to a group or organization that they invest considerable time, psychic energy, and physical activity, for the pursuit of furthering the group‟s purposes (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Winston & Massaro, 1987). Many studies have shown significant positive relationships between students‟ level of involvement and their overall personal development and persistence to graduation (Astin, 1984, 1993; Kuh, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The time and energy of students is by far the most valuable resource within an institution of higher education, even when compared to money, so it is important to understand the ways in which students are using this resource (M. Wilson, 2004). Student affairs professionals‟ primary responsibility on campus is to increase student involvement in developmentally
  13. 13. 4 purposeful activities (Evans et al., 2010). The Relationship between Involvement and Facebook Use Research has shown that students spend a significant amount of their time using Facebook (Junco, 2012; Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012). Involvement theory has stated that it is important for students to spend their time in educationally and developmentally purposeful activities (Astin, 1984). With that in mind, evidence will soon be presented to demonstrate the importance of determining if there is a correlation between undergraduate college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co- curricular involvement in these positive activities, and if a correlation exists, what its direction is. Consensus does not currently exist on this question, though the following studies have focused on similar constructs and offered insights into this specific relationship. Negative correlation. One common perception is that Facebook – like other forms of technology that preceded it – isolates students (Barkhuus & Tashiro, 2010). Althought it is in the very nature of Facebook to connect people online, technology usually does keep students physically separated from each other, and has the potential to limit face-to-face interaction (Coomes, 2004; Lowery, 2004). This could lead to a serious degeneration in an entire population of adults‟ ability to develop effective interpersonal skills, understand social cues, and confront interpersonal conflicts (Junco & Chickering, 2010). One study (Junco, 2012) found an overall negative correlation between the quantity of Facebook use, and student engagement and involvement in co-curricular activities. Specific Facebook behaviors linked to this negative correlation were playing
  14. 14. 5 games and checking up on friends. There was also a negative correlation between time spent on Facebook Chat and time spent preparing for class. These results suggested that Facebook use does require time and psychological energy, but overall that time and energy does not translate positively to co-curricular involvement (Junco, 2012). Positive correlation. On the other hand, authors (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2007; Manago et al., 2012) have noted that students‟ use of Facebook can have a positive connection to involvement. One study (Manago, et al., 2012) found results that imply that students who spend more time involved in co-curricular activities come into contact with more individuals, who then have the potential to become Facebook friends. If the size of one‟s social network is linked to positive outcomes, and co-curricular activities increase the size of one‟s social network, then Facebook use and co-curricular involvement may be positively correlated (Manago et al., 2012). There is evidence that online interactions through Facebook do not remove users from the offline world, but indeed support and enhance offline relationships and social capital, which therefore increases users‟ participation in offline settings (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Manago et al., 2012). Students‟ involvement in this online community connects them to far more people than could be provided within a physical campus community. While earlier studies have stressed the importance of face-to-face communication in personal development (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), few have attempted to study the same developmental impact within the virtual landscape. Additionally, the intentional nature of editing one‟s profile could mean that students have the opportunity to self-select into various communities and migrate with ease, rather than
  15. 15. 6 being confined to their physical location or past placement (Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). This idea of technology providing an intentional and socially reinforcing environment has existed before the invention of Facebook (Putnam, Feldstein, & Cohen, as cited in Lowery, 2004), and studies on social capital have supported Facebook‟s success in achieving this vision (Ellison et al., 2007; Manago et al., 2012). It has also been suggested that Facebook is the new student union, and that progressive leaders in higher education should shift their emphasis and resources from the physical building where students used to be, to the community on Facebook where the students of the 21st century spend their time (Heiberger & Harper, 2008). If Facebook use is linked to increased participation in developmental activities, it would be difficult to find the developmental difference between opportunities to participate in these activities on campus compared to on Facebook (Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). Along those lines, some (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009) have suggested that Facebook is not intrinsically devoid of the capability to provide developmental opportunities. Professionals should take advantage of opportunities to turn virtual spaces into developmentally beneficial environments – as they already have with physical spaces – in which students would want to participate (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Junco, 2012; Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). Since students communicate frequently through Facebook (Junco, 2012; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007), it is common for those who are already involved in campus activities to utilize this online space to attract other students to join them in their pursuits (Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). Using Facebook as a campus bulletin board might change the role of the service from being its own distinct activity, to becoming merely a
  16. 16. 7 medium for others to share their activities happening on the physical campus. Within this online community, all student Facebook users have equal access to the information that others share, unlike posters that students hang in residence halls that preclude outsiders from ever becoming aware of certain opportunities, for example. In this way, Facebook could serve as a vehicle for the democratization of opportunities for campus involvement. Through increasing awareness of opportunities to participate in developmental activities, Facebook has the potential to increase productive behaviors of involvement regardless of how much time students spend on the service itself (Junco & Chickering, 2010; Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). While these perspectives are enticing, existing research has not yet fully examined these issues. The debate on the relationship between Facebook use and productive and developmental levels of increased involvement continues (Junco & Chickering, 2010). For the most part, the argument is highly polarized with a wide array of opinionated speculations, with many positions lacking substantial supporting research (Junco, 2012). Some professionals have recognized how much time students spend on Facebook, and have therefore decided that they must incorporate it into their work of promoting students to become involved in campus activities (Olson & Martin, 2010). This rationale is weak, since the justification for using Facebook is unsubstantiated when the actual correlation between college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co-curricular involvement has not been fully established (Junco & Chickering, 2010). Research Questions Students‟ time is an invaluable resource (Astin, 1984). Many disagree about whether Facebook is a productive use of this time and how it relates to involvement
  17. 17. 8 (Cotton, 2008; Junco, 2012; Junco & Chickering, 2010). With that in mind, there is a need for specific research on the relationship between student use of Facebook and their co-curricular involvement. There are two research questions for this study: Is there a correlation between the level of undergraduate college students‟ Facebook use and their co-curricular involvement within the campus community? And is there a correlation between the nature of undergraduate college students‟ Facebook use and their co- curricular involvement within the campus community? This study examined the extent and manner of Facebook use among college students, their level and type of co-curricular involvement within the campus community, and determined if there was a relationship between the two constructs. The researcher accomplished this by measuring the level and specific activities of Facebook use and co- curricular involvement. The instrument for this study measured Facebook use through the number of minutes each day that students actively spent using the service, as well as the number of times per day that they logged in to the service. To measure specific Facebook behaviors, the survey asked 14 questions measuring the frequency with which participants engaged in common Facebook activities. The researcher measured involvement quantitatively by determining the average amount of hours per week participants spent in co-curricular activities and organizations. This was achieved by modifying a question on the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) to ask how many hours per week participants typically spent involved in activities outside of the classroom. The researcher then measured the behavioral extent of that involvement by administering two scales of the CSEQ. The first was the Campus Facilities scale, which measured the frequency and extent to which
  18. 18. 9 students utilized spaces on campus such as the student union and recreational facilities. The second was the Clubs and Organizations scale, which measured the behavior and level of involvement in student clubs and organizations. Based on previous research that measured social media use and campus involvement to some extent (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; HERI, 2007; Junco, 2012; Junco, Heiberger & Loken, 2010; Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009), this research study began with the hypothesis that there would be a positive correlation between college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co- curricular involvement on campus. Significance A greater understanding of the correlation between college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co-curricular involvement will benefit many stakeholders. First, college administrators would benefit from this study. Everything from creating policy to campus design has an impact on student involvement (Astin, 1984; Braxton, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In an environment where student time and energy is the most valuable resource an institution has, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of any phenomenon‟s impact on involvement (M. Wilson, 2004). This is especially important given the significance of the relationship between involvement and retention of students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Administrators would be able to use this information in developing policies and making decisions, including the allocation of resources to utilize or deter the usage of Facebook. Second, students would benefit from this research. Professionals would be able to create environments more suitable to increasing involvement among students, characterized in part by heavy use of social media (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso,
  19. 19. 10 2010). Students will exhibit increased levels of learning and personal development, since students‟ level of involvement is responsible for the most substantial amount of growth from precollege characteristics (Astin, 1984; Davis & Murrell, 1993; Pace, 1982; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Therefore, this research could benefit students because professionals would be able to better educate them about what Facebook does and does not do, and help identify the most educationally and developmentally beneficial ways for it to be used. Third, student affairs professionals need to understand if a relationship exists between Facebook use and student involvement. This understanding will help to inform better practices for increasing involvement within campus communities, which is one of the primary functions of student affairs professionals (Baird, 2003; Braxton, 2003; Evans et al., 2010; Strange & Banning, 2001). As student affairs professionals continue to educate students about how to have a safe and productive college experience, it is becoming essential to include training about effective uses of Facebook, specifically with the goal of promoting co-curricular involvement. Thus, in a continued effort to increase involvement and therefore promote student learning and development, it is the responsibility of student affairs professionals to gather empirical evidence to help guide future interventions (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, as cited in Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004). In an environment where Facebook is as ubiquitous as mobile phones (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010), it is essential to understand the impacts that this technology has on student involvement. By understanding if there is a correlation between college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co-curricular involvement, higher education
  20. 20. 11 administrators, students, and student affairs professionals will gain information that could prove critical to making college environments supportive of current students. Summary Co-curricular involvement plays a crucial role in student learning and development (Astin, 1984, 1993; Evans et al., 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Social media, particularly Facebook, has become widely and frequently used on college campuses (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; Smith et al., 2011). In one single- institution study (Junco, 2012), students spent over 11.8 hours per week using Facebook. Given this amount of time students typically spend on Facebook – time that could be spent participating in other activities – it is important to understand if there is a correlation between undergraduate college students‟ Facebook use and co-curricular involvement. This chapter has introduced a research study that aims to determine if there is a correlation between college students‟ level and nature of Facebook use and co-curricular involvement within the campus community. This study is important to three main stakeholders. It will assist college administrators in making decisions regarding Facebook use on campus, it will be useful to students who are highly engaged in social media and expect to experience maximum personal growth associated with attending college, and it will help student affairs professionals in their goal of increasing co- curricular involvement and fostering student learning and development. This chapter has defined and clarified Facebook use and co-curricular involvement within the context of this study. The following chapter will explore relevant research on these topics in relation to the significance of this study.
  21. 21. 12 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The previous chapter introduced college student Facebook use and co-curricular involvement, and the significance of a study on the relationship between the two. This section will provide more insight into these two variables, specifically as they relate to the proposed study. This chapter will begin with an introduction of the population of interest for the proposed study, and then discuss co-curricular involvement, college students‟ Facebook use, and studies that have measured the relationship between them to some degree. College Students Before examining the background of the specific constructs of this study, it is important to understand the population of interest. This section will provide a brief overview of college students, and the proliferation of technology among this population and on the college campus. Characteristics of the College Student Population As of 2010, there are over 17 million students enrolled in 4,291 institutions of higher education across the United States (U.S. Department of Education, as cited in “Profile of Undergraduate Students,” 2009). The demographics of these students vary greatly, especially when considering age. Student enrollments represent almost every age group of adults. This diversity contributes to the great richness in the higher education community, yet is also a source of tension between the various generations (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). For example, in the 2008-2009 academic year, 17.3% of students in higher education were between the ages of 24-29, and 23% were 30 years old or older.
  22. 22. 13 The largest group of students was in the 15-23 age group, which made up over 59% of enrolled college students (U.S. Department of Education, as cited in “Profile of Undergraduate Students,” 2009). Millennial generation. As demonstrated by the breakdown of the student population by age, the largest generation currently enrolled in higher education is the Millennial generation, which includes individuals born between 1982 and 2002 (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). There are important characteristics of this generation of students that relate directly to higher education. They are larger than any previous generation, and are estimated them to grow to over 33% larger than the Baby Boomer generation (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). The Millennial generation is also more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation. Over 39% of the generation belongs to a minority racial or ethnic group, some of whom are first-generation Americans (Broido, 2004). Millennial students are also typically more comfortable with technology, and have been referred to as the Net generation (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007) and digital natives (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). Digital natives. Prensky (2001) coined the term “digital native” (p. 1). According to his definition, those born in 1980 or later fall within this category. Prensky (2001) described these individuals as native speakers of the language of computers and the Internet, where the development of digital technologies has created a dramatic paradigm shift that makes them distinctively different from previous generations. This generation of digital natives “think and process information fundamentally differently than their predecessors” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Palfrey and Gasser (2008) expanded on this definition, stating that the
  23. 23. 14 distinguishing factor of digital natives is their high level of computer skill and knowledge. The authors affirmed that a significant problem that directly results from this is a lack of attention to protecting personal privacy. Digital natives publish a greater amount of personal information in public spaces. This is particularly disturbing when looking at how that published information could be detrimental years or decades later (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Scholars (boyd, 2007; Farquhar, 2009) have conducted studies that support these characteristics of digital natives. In one case, at a large public Midwest institution, Farquhar (2009) interviewed undergraduate students who then used Facebook while being observed by the researcher. One of the conclusions of the study was that digital natives had substantially different usages of technology and social media than older generations. There were four specific findings: digital natives were successful at creating an intricate and accurate representation of their personal identity online, reciprocity was a key value in technologically mediated interpersonal relationships, differentiation between online and offline identities did not exist, and digital natives appeared to have less- developed offline social skills (Farquhar, 2009). In seeking to understand college students‟ use of technology, Junco and Mastrodicasa (2007) conducted a multi-institutional study to collect data on this generation‟s use of technology and how it related to the college environment. The authors said that the primary characteristic to take into account with digital natives – or the Net generation, as the authors referred to them – is that students rely on technology to communicate with each other. These college students have more interactions in a technologically mediated space compared to previous generations, and will increasingly
  24. 24. 15 expect their communications to occur online (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). Junco and Mastrodicasa (2007) asserted this is why it is important to consider this generation of college students differently than previous generations. On the other hand, some researchers have questioned the validity in making such broad generalizations of the skills and characteristics of a single generation (Hargittai, 2009; Morgan & Bullen, 2011). Hargittai (2009) conducted a study of the online skills and abilities of a diverse group of first-year college students at a private institution in the Midwest. The study found a substantial degree of variance between the levels of skill within the group of digital natives, with participants‟ abilities ranging from meeting the expectation of digital natives, to a lower level of competency than expected of older individuals. Overall, while digital natives are comfortable with technology, that comfort does not translate to a high level of skill (Hargittai, 2009; Morgan & Bullen, 2011). Additionally, Hargittai (2009) found statistically significant relationships between technological skill level and socioeconomic standing, race, ethnicity, and gender. Participants that displayed the lowest level of technological skill were predominantly female, African American, Hispanic, and/or of low socioeconomic standing. Keeping in mind the fact that the Millennial generation, or digital natives, are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous group (Broido, 2004), Hargittai‟s (2009) findings suggest a modification to the differentiation between digital natives and other generations to include recognition of the role of privilege in participation in the modern technological society.
  25. 25. 16 Proliferation of Technology on Campus The EDUCAUSE Core Data Service report (Arroway, Davenport, Xu, & Updegrove, 2010) provided results from a study on the information technology environments and practices at over 875 institutions throughout the nation. These results indicated that students are using technology more than ever, and administrators have responded by making campuses more conducive to this evolution. Based on the awareness that college students expect a larger integration of technology into every aspect of their lives, and on the substantial advances in educational technology in the past decade, technology has become present in almost every aspect of college campuses (Arroway et al., 2010). S. Smith and Caruso (2010) conducted the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. The participants were a nationally representative sample of almost 37,000 students. One series of questions in the ECAR study sought to determine students‟ use of the Internet. On average, students reported spending 21.2 hours per week online (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). An analysis of this time compared to students‟ GPA showed no statistically significant correlation. S. Smith and Caruso (2010) also reported that 98.6% of students owned a computer, and that 33% of those students owned more than one computer. Over 89% of respondents said that they owned a netbook or laptop, while only half owned a desktop computer. Mobile use. A continuing theme among the ECAR (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010) report was that students‟ technology use is becoming more mobile than ever before. Almost all participants reported owning a mobile phone, and two-thirds of them said they
  26. 26. 17 could access the Internet from their phone. Of those with internet access from their phone, over 90% of respondents said they primarily use their mobile devices for text messaging and accessing social networking sites, including Facebook, and that they engage in these activities daily. Respondents also listed using their mobile phones to check the news and weather, get sports updates and statistics, and send and receive email. While studies (boyd, 2007; Farquhar, 2009; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007) have reported that Millennial generation students are heavy users of technology, they are not the only college students immersed in adapting it for educational purposes. Among the ECAR (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010) study‟s participants, only about 78% belonged to the Millennial generation. S. Smith and Caruso (2010) did not find a statistically significant difference between the responses of Millennial students compared to older students, which may suggest that the generations are not as different as previous definitions (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001) proposed. Therefore, even though higher education is not composed only of Millennial students, this data suggests that most college students share similar levels of technological skill and comfort as the digital natives. Campus support for technology. According to Arroway, Davenport, Xu, and Updergrove‟s (2010) data, college and university administrators are expanding support for students‟ use of technology, from smart classrooms to online web portals. The latest trend is finding ways to support mobile devices on campus. One particular service that is becoming standard is providing campus-wide wireless Internet access, or Wi-Fi. Arroway et al. (2010) reported that most classrooms at institutions within the study were equipped with Wi-Fi, and noted a similar trend within residence halls. Furthermore, the
  27. 27. 18 authors stated that student unions provided Wi-Fi in over 95% of the participating institutions (Arroway et al., 2010). Student perceptions (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010) and institutional data (Arroway et al., 2010) linked the integration of technology to increased levels of learning. Students reported an overall acceptance and willingness to use technology for academic pursuits both in and outside of the classroom. S. Smith and Caruso (2010) noted that over one- third of students reported using technology in the classroom in some way, and most of those students said that it was educationally beneficial. Over 66% of students who said their professors posted class materials online reported that they did not use technology as an excuse to skip class; some even reported that it helped improve their class experience by easing the pressures of note-taking. Almost a quarter of the students surveyed said they had used social networking sites as part of an assigned class responsibility or to collaborate with peers on class work. Among those who did not, over one-third said that they would appreciate the opportunity to do so (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). Summary Prensky (2001), and Palfrey and Gasser (2008), described individuals within the Millennial generation as digital natives. Hargittai (2009), on the other hand, found that members of the Millennial generation were not a homogenous group who all possessed the same level of technological skill. S. Smith and Caruso (2010) found that older students answered questions regarding technology use in higher education similarly to those of the Millennial generation. This distinction is relevant because it would encourage higher education professionals to apply the same assumptions of students‟ use of technology to all college students, regardless of age, and that technological comfort is
  28. 28. 19 not equivalent to a high level of skill. Faculty, staff, and administrators have already begun responding to this by increasing the technological integration of campus in many ways (Arroway et al., 2010; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). This section provided an overview of the characteristics of college students, examined how these students use technology, and discussed how most campuses support the behavior. The student population is very diverse (Broido, 2004; “Profile of Undergraduate Students,” 2009) and typically represented by high-users of technology (Arroway et al., 2010; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). This background information should help to inform an understanding of college students‟ use of technology and social media, and the substantial amount of time they dedicate to using it. The next section will look more deeply at the importance of spending that time invested within the physical campus community, specifically regarding co-curricular involvement. College Student Involvement According to Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010), one of the primary goals of student affairs professionals is to increase involvement in order to expose students to developmental activities and learning experiences outside of the classroom. Astin (1984) defined student involvement as the “quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience” (p. 235). Specifically, this study will focus on students‟ level of involvement in co-curricular activities, where the term co-curricular refers to activities which happen outside of the classroom.
  29. 29. 20 Involvement Theory The theory of involvement originated from Pace‟s (1982) work (Astin, 1984; Davis & Murrell, 1993; Kuh, 2009). Pace (1982) identified the two most important features of student learning and development to be the frequency of time and quality of effort students invest in the college environment. The college environment corresponds to the facilities and opportunities that foster educative experiences within behavioral settings, or places on campus that intentionally promote learning and development, such as the student union or library. Pace (1982) verified this theory through a study of over 12,000 undergraduate students at 40 different institutions nationwide using the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The fundamental aspect of Pace‟s (1982) theory was that the most substantial determining factor of student success in higher education was the quality of effort students invested in the college experience, which was far more predictive than precollege characteristics or the college environment. In other words, Pace (1982) argued “what counts most is not who they are or where they are but what they do” (p. 18). In defining college student involvement, Astin (1984) identified five key postulates of involvement theory: involvement requires physical and psychological energy, involvement occurs along a continuum, involvement has both quantitative and qualitative features, development is proportional to the quantity and quality of involvement, and educational effectiveness is related to the capacity to increase involvement. As Astin (1984) introduced, M. Wilson (2004) elaborated that students‟ finite time and energy is the single most significant resource an institution has. Competing for this precious resource, the activities in which students spend their time are
  30. 30. 21 in direct opposition with each other. The greatest benefits of involvement will only be attained if students select the most educationally and developmentally purposeful activities in which to participate (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Roberts, 2003). Davis and Murrell (1993) warned that students might choose to become more involved in activities that isolate them or take them away from their studies, and that professionals should intervene to prevent these behaviors from commonly occurring. Braxton (2003) echoed Astin‟s (1984) statement that everything an institution does, from creation of policies to design and layout of campuses, significantly affects how students spend their time and energy. Since the goal of higher education is student learning and development, professionals should evaluate decisions and policies based on their ability to increase involvement. Indeed, it has been repeatedly stated that institutions could improve the overall quality of higher education simply by working to increase student involvement on campus, both in and outside of the classroom (Astin, 1984; Braxton, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Winston & Massaro, 1987). Promoting involvement is the most effective way to make the most use of, and build on, the strengths each student initially brings to the campus (Astin, 1984; Davis & Murrell, 1993). One way of going about this would be creating communities that effectively produce a culture of involvement, such as learning communities comprised of highly engaged students. Baird (2003) suggested that a strategy for accomplishing this would be for student affairs professionals to serve as negotiators between students and their institutions, by creating the conditions for these communities to exist, and to encourage students to become co-creators of the community. Braxton (2003) suggested another perspective, that student affairs professionals should intentionally construct
  31. 31. 22 opportunities for social interactions among students and with professionals, with a specific emphasis on facilitating face-to-face discussions. One of the main challenges facing student affairs professionals is finding ways to make opportunities for involvement appealing to students (Astin, 1984; Baird, 2003; Braxton, 2003; Evans et al., 2010). This is an even more challenging issue for large institutions, where the likelihood of social involvement is significantly less than at smaller institutions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). While it is difficult to identify what the most meaningful opportunities for involvement are (Winston & Massaro, 1987), they include participating in diverse residential environments, joining student organizations, taking responsibility within new leadership positions, participating in varsity or intramural sports, and finding new peer groups. Finding ways to create more opportunities for involvement, or determining what barriers might prevent students from taking advantage of such opportunities, is a critical task for student affairs professionals (Astin 1984, 1993; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Strange & Banning, 2001). Involvement vs. Engagement If Astin‟s (1984) definition of student involvement was an evolution of previous research (Pace, 1982) on how students spend their time and energy on campus, student engagement is the most recent embodiment of that idea. It is important then to clarify why the current study will utilize the theory of involvement, which is less commonly used than the current construct of engagement. This section will define engagement in order to explain why the theory of involvement best meets the needs of this study. Kuh (2009) defined engagement as “the time and effort students devote to
  32. 32. 23 activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities” (p. 683). This definition evolved from Astin‟s (1984) theory of involvement, and Pace‟s (1982) earlier notion of the quality of student effort and time on task (Kuh, 2009). It is important to note the difference of Kuh‟s (2009) definition to these previous ideas, and contrast the relationship to its evolution. To start, there are obvious similarities that continue the tradition of involvement in Kuh‟s (2009) definition of engagement. The emphasis remains on the time and effort that students spend in activities believed to promote learning and development. Both theory‟s core philosophy was introduced in the second “Student Personnel Point of View” (American Council on Education, 1949/1994) which said that there is value in understanding what activities students decide to invest their time and energy, and that students are ultimately responsible for their own growth (Davis & Murrell, 1993). The main tenets of engagement originated from Chickering and Gamson‟s (1987) seven good practices in undergraduate education (Kuh, 2009). These principles are student-faculty contact, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations, respect for diverse learning styles, and cooperation among students. This serves as the foundation for the benchmarks of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which quantifies the student experience and measures engagement. The scope and reach of these seven principles are indicators of the breadth of the definition of engagement (Kuh, 2009). A few key components of engagement differ from the definition of involvement. Whereas Astin (1984) focused specifically on the behavior of involvement and not its
  33. 33. 24 outcome, Kuh (2009) conceived of engagement as a broad construct that incorporates most aspects of the collegiate experience and defined it by its impact on empirical educational outcomes. This breadth of scope helps make NSSE data vital to most stakeholders in higher education, and provides useful information for any party whose goal is student learning and development. One of the most focal aspects of the definition of engagement is the way in which students invest time and energy in their academic pursuits. This is directly aligned with the goal of persistence and graduation, where involvement in activities outside of the classroom is measured in terms of its ability to impact academic and class-related outcomes (Kuh, 2009). Kuh‟s (2009) definition of engagement provides another difference from Astin‟s (1984) definition of involvement. Within engagement, there is an emphasis on how strongly students feel connected to their institution because of what professionals within the institution do to create environments conducive to engagement. It is logical that such an evaluation would be necessary, based on the good practices introduced by Chickering and Gamson (1987), specifically including student-faculty contact, prompt feedback, high expectations, and respect for diverse learning styles. However, this approach to engagement differs greatly from Astin‟s (1984) definition of involvement, which intentionally does not include this feeling of connectedness. The definition of engagement is highly concerned with developmental outcomes and student response to their level of engagement. Due primarily to its substantial reach, engagement is viewed partly as a behavior, and more significantly as an influence of student learning and development. This is why one of the key aspects of measuring engagement is to determine the likelihood of development resulting from satisfaction and
  34. 34. 25 participation in a supportive campus environment (Kuh, 2009). On the other hand, the definition of involvement – and therefore any of its measurements – focuses strictly on the behavior of involvement. Astin (1984) stated that involvement does not focus on how students feel resulting from their behavior, but simply the amount of time and energy students devoted to intentionally educational and developmental activities. While this behavior has become an important component of engagement, the definition of involvement is highly focused in comparison. Involvement theory explicitly attempts to understand students‟ behavior in regards to how they devote their time and energy in the college experience. Scholars (Baird, 2003; Ericson, 2011; Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Junco, 2012; Kuh, 2009) have noted the similarities and differences between the definitions of involvement and engagement. In some cases (Baird, 2003; Ericson, 2011), researchers conflated the definitions to create an understanding of a specific interest in time and effort, without sacrificing the broad developmental impacts of engagement. In other studies, researchers (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Junco, 2012) outlined the evolution of involvement to engagement in order to show the significance of engagement in the current understanding of student development, while highlighting the specific focus on time on task. To be sure, there are differences between the definitions of involvement and engagement, which matches the perceptions of scholars and practitioners. Engagement is the most recent evolution of the understanding of the impact of how students spend their time and energy and its impact on their learning and development (Kuh, 2009). This definition is much broader than Astin‟s (1984) definition of involvement. Involvement
  35. 35. 26 theory is useful in providing specific focus, since it is conceptualized only as a student behavior in how time and energy are spent, with a greater emphasis on experiences outside of the classroom. It is also more clearly defined and articulated than Pace‟s (1982) theory, from where involvement theory came. For that reason, involvement is more directly relevant to this study, rather than the definition of engagement and its emphasis on academic behavior, developmental outcomes, and feelings of connection to institutional environments. Benefits of Involvement Roberts (2003) and Baird (2003) affirmed that students‟ overall satisfaction with their college experience positively relates to the total time on task spent interacting with one‟s peers and educational materials. Astin (1984) proposed that the amount of time and energy students devote to developmental activities directly and positively affects their ability to achieve desired developmental outcomes. Tinto (1975) and Kuh (1995, 2009) stated that involvement, satisfaction, and psychosocial development all relate to student persistence. A brief discussion of studies on the benefits of student involvement follows. Satisfaction. Many studies have found a direct correlation between level of involvement in co-curricular activities and degree of satisfaction with the overall college experience. Since the theory of involvement originated from data on student satisfaction and persistence, Astin (1984) specifically described the correlation between involvement and satisfaction. First, Astin (1984) reported that residential students, who are considered highly involved based solely on the fact that they spend most, if not all, of their time on the
  36. 36. 27 campus, reported higher levels of satisfaction than commuters. These students reported the highest levels of satisfaction with the areas of student friendships, faculty-student relationships, institutional reputation, and social life. Second, students involved with athletic programs reported high levels of satisfaction compared to less-involved students. The areas of satisfaction reported were with the institution‟s academic reputation, intellectual environment, student friendships, and institutional administration. Third, students involved with student government associations reported very high levels of satisfaction with their college experience, specifically in greater than average satisfaction with student friendships (Astin, 1984). In addition to Astin‟s (1984) work, Kuh (1995) conducted a study of the value of co-curricular experiences. In an attempt to measure the significant impact of experiences outside of the classroom on student learning, Kuh (1995) carried out a multi-institutional qualitative research study, where the overall goal was to determine the outcomes of out- of-class experiences. In the end, the author compiled a 14-item taxonomy of significant outcomes. This taxonomy included sense of purpose, social competence, confidence, and application of knowledge. Kuh (1995) stated that the combination of these 14 items was highly correlated with student satisfaction. Therefore, in addition to the specific beneficial outcomes, Kuh (1995) concluded that student satisfaction in general increased as a product of increased involvement. Various institutional settings have reflected the relationship between involvement and satisfaction. J. D. Wilson (1999) conducted a study of students involved in recognized campus organizations at a mid-sized southern institution. The researcher found a positive relationship between level of involvement and satisfaction with the
  37. 37. 28 institution, which showed that students who belonged to an organization reported the most satisfaction with their college experience. Elliott (2009) reported similar results when focusing on community college students. When the researcher compared a group of involved students to a similar group of their un-involved peers, students involved in formal co-curricular activities reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their college experience. Overall, Astin (1993), and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), reported similar findings. In Astin‟s (1993) analysis of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) data, the results showed that a perception of a strong student community had the strongest direct effects on student satisfaction when compared to any other environmental measure. Since involvement is a crucial component of community (Strange & Banning, 2001), Astin‟s (1993) analysis seems to show that involvement played a key role in student satisfaction. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) summarized the literature on the impact that college has on students. They analyzed a remarkable number of studies, and effectively summarized the overall impact that participation in higher education has on college students. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) echoed Astin‟s (1993) finding, where students who perceived membership in an organized group of students who had similar values and attitudes to their own showed higher levels of satisfaction with their college experience. Student development. A substantial number of studies have measured the relationship and impact of involvement on student development. As stated explicitly in Astin‟s (1984) theory of involvement, “The extent to which students can achieve particular developmental goals is a direct function of the time and effort they devote to
  38. 38. 29 activities designed to produce these gains” (p. 222). Involvement in co-curricular activities has a direct impact on positive student development (Astin, 1984, 1993; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Elliott, 2009; Kuh, 1995; Pace, 1982; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Winston & Massaro, 1987). The small, single-institution studies that determined links between specific aspects of involvement and development, and the large and broad multi-institutional studies, have provided a thorough understanding of this effect. Referring back to Kuh‟s (1995) study, the qualitative analysis displayed overwhelming benefits of involvement on student development, which supported the theory of involvement. Of the 14 taxonomy items, 9 that were reported by Kuh (1995) to be caused by high levels of involvement are also directly related to psychosocial and cognitive development as identified by Chickering and Reisser (1993), and Love and Guthrie (1999). Examples of these items include autonomy and self-directedness, social competence, reflective thought, and application of knowledge. Several scholars (Guardia & Evans, 2008; Guiffrida, 2003; Harper & Quaye, 2007; Renn & Bilodeau, 2005) have noted the impact that co-curricular involvement has in the social identity development process. In their qualitative analysis, Harper and Quaye (2007) found that Black students attending a predominantly White institution reflected on their experiences involved with Black student organizations as being beneficial to their sense of belonging and development of their racial identity. The researchers placed specific emphasis on the fact that most students reported joining such organizations while displaying characteristics symbolic of Cross‟ (1995) Immersion- Emersion stage. Harper and Quaye (2007) noted that the more involved students they
  39. 39. 30 interviewed showed signs of Cross‟ (1995) Internalization stage, the final stage after Immersion-Emersion, and that the students directly related their development to their involvement in these groups. Harper and Quaye (2007) concluded that co-curricular involvement and participants‟ social identity development were directly related. Guiffrida (2003) found similar results among African American students at another predominantly White institution; Guardia and Evans (2008) reported similar findings among Latino/a students at a Hispanic Serving Institution; and Renn and Bilodeau (2005) identified a similar correlation among Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgendered (LBGT) students involved in a regional LGBT conference. To study the relationship between involvement in clubs and organizations, and overall student development, Foubert and Grainger (2006) administered the Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) and a simple measure of involvement and leadership to a random sample of traditionally aged students at a mid- sized southeast public institution, over the course of four years. The researchers found a substantial positive statistically significant correlation between levels of involvement and development, where the more intensely participants were involved, the higher they scored on the SDTLI. Many researchers (Cooper, Healy, & Simpson, 1994; Elliott, 2009; Martin, 2000; J. D. Wilson, 1999) have found results consistent with Foubert and Grainger (2006). Additional studies have examined the relationship between co-curricular involvement, and critical thinking and cognitive development (Gellin, 2003; Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling, 1996; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Nora, & Terenzini, 1999). Gellin (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of research presented between 1991 and 2000 on this
  40. 40. 31 relationship, which showed an overall gain in critical thinking. The author stated that the positive nature of involvement in multiple activities, which would provide various perspectives and encourage reevaluation of preexisting attitudes and values, could help these gains in critical thinking. Similar findings were reported by Terenzini, Pascarella, and Blimling‟s (1996) review of previous literature on the relationship of involvement and cognitive development, as well as Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Nora, and Terenzini (1999), whose results were measured with their Nonclassroom Peer Interaction Scale. Moving to large multi-institutional studies on the impact of involvement on student development, Astin‟s (1993) analysis of the CIRP data provided insights into the effect of involvement on cognitive and affective outcomes of student learning and development. Astin (1993) reported that there was statistically significant evidence that greater time spent involved in both academic, and co-curricular activities had substantial positive effects on learning and development. This significance was stronger than almost every other measure of environmental aspects or precollege characteristics. Moreover, Astin (1993) found the opposite to display similar significant results: strong negative outcomes resulted from behaviors of un-involvement, including activities that isolated students or removed them from the campus. Dugan, Garland, Jacoby, and Gasiorski (2008) studied involvement among commuter students, who are traditionally underrepresented in the literature. The perception that commuter students are automatically less involved has led to negative, generalized statements, such as commuter students being deficient in their involvement and development, which is not accurate or supported by research studies (B. Jacoby, personal communication, October 10, 2011). Using nationally representative data from
  41. 41. 32 the Multi-Institutional Study on Leadership, Dugan et al. (2008) found that involvement in specific peer interactions, leadership training, and employer relations had equal impacts on self-efficacy and leadership development for commuter students as residential students. This is relevant because it indicates that commuter students – which represent over 85% of college students (Dugan, Garland, Jacoby, & Gasiorski, 2008) – who participate in intentionally developmental activities receive similar benefits as residential students. Overall, one of Pascarella and Terenzini‟s (2005) conclusions was that interpersonal involvement with peers and faculty directly increases psychosocial development, and more specifically interpersonal development. Supporting Astin‟s (1993) findings, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reported that overall, level of involvement within the campus community is by far the single most predictive factor in student development, especially when academic, co-curricular, and social involvement are mutually reinforcing. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded “Students derive the greatest developmental benefits from engagement in peer networks that expose them to individuals different from themselves” (p. 615). Persistence. One area of study that is of particular interest to a variety of groups within higher education is student persistence, or the rate at which students successfully continue enrollment at an institution through degree completion. Tinto‟s (1975) theory of student persistence stated that precollege characteristics and social and academic integration within the institution directly affect students‟ rate of commencement. Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004) provided a summary and critique of this model. The authors argued that a single theory could not explain a problem as complex as
  42. 42. 33 student persistence across institutional types. However, the authors noted that social integration, and therefore involvement, played an important role in understanding student persistence and departure. One of Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon‟s (2004) primary conclusions was that “The greater the level of psychological energy a student invests in various social interactions at his or her college or university, the greater the student‟s degree of social integration” (p. 26). Several researchers (Astin, 1984, 1993; Berger & Milem, 1999; Pascarella, 1982; Tinto, 1975) have sought to understand the relationship between level of co-curricular involvement and persistence. This is a logical connection when considering Tinto‟s (1975) emphasis on social integration as one of the primary determining factors in persistence, and since Astin‟s (1984) theory of involvement originated from research on college student persistence. Pascarella (1982) conducted a multi-institutional study to determine the predictive validity of theoretical models of student departure. The most important result was the significant correlation between social and academic integration from Tinto‟s (1975) model and departure decisions, even when taking into account a wide variety in student precollege characteristics (Pascarella, 1982). A similar finding was reported by Berger and Milem (1999) in their multi-institutional study, who stated that involvement in co-curricular activities increased levels of social integration and the perception that the institution was supportive to student needs and desires, which lead to the decision to persist. Elliott (2009) found a direct increase in persistence related to a student‟s level of satisfaction and psychosocial development. In their summary of research within the previous decade, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) stated that the single most influential
  43. 43. 34 factor of student persistence was level of involvement, specifically as it related to face-to- face interaction among peers. Since involvement increases satisfaction with the college experience, and increases the level of psychosocial development that occurs during college, it becomes undeniable that involvement indeed affects persistence. According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), “Interaction with peers is probably the most pervasive and powerful force in student persistence and degree completion,” (p. 615). Additionally, “extracurricular involvement had modest, positive effects on institutional persistence and educational attainment” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 616). Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), found that face-to-face interaction with peers and faculty directly increased satisfaction, psychosocial and interpersonal development, and likelihood of persistence. The emphasis is that student satisfaction, learning and development, and persistence increases by providing access to environments and opportunities for involvement; but caution must be taken to remember that these benefits can only be realized if students are held individually responsible for taking advantage of these opportunities (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Measures of Involvement The definition of involvement focuses particularly on factors that facilitate development, rather than the developmental process itself. It is concerned solely with the behavior of involvement, and intentionally excludes the impact of involvement or students‟ perception of how it makes them feel (Astin, 1984; Davis & Murrell, 1993; Evans et al., 2010). A high intensity of involvement is evident when students are markedly committed enough to a group or organization that they invest considerable
  44. 44. 35 time, psychic energy, and physical activity, for the pursuit of furthering the group‟s purposes (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Winston & Massaro, 1987). This section will examine four different measures of involvement, including a general understanding of an average level of hours of involvement, select scales from NSSE, the Extracurricular Involvement Inventory (EII), and the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). Hours of involvement. The first measure of involvement is intentionally simplistic. It is not limited to a specific instrument or scale, and often does not exist as more than a single question. Quite simply, researchers ask participants to report how many hours they spent involved in co-curricular activities in a given timeframe. This type of measurement can range from one single number in which participants summarize their total time of involvement, to a series of questions on the number of hours spent participating in a list of activities. For example, in Junco‟s (2012) study of the relationship between Facebook use and level of engagement, to measure students‟ level of co-curricular involvement, one question was asked directing students to list the number of hours per week that they spent involved in activities outside the classroom. On the other hand, Pascarella (1982) created an instrument called the Student Involvement Questionnaire, for a study that sought to measure level of involvement as it related to social integration and persistence. The instrument was comprised of many questions that asked participants to list how many hours each week they spent involved in specific activities, such as intramural athletics, fraternity/sorority activities, and hobbies or social clubs. While this is a simplistic means of measuring involvement, it is useful when trying to show that another activity does or does not inhibit the amount of hours that
  45. 45. 36 participants can spend involved in co-curricular activities. In this way, this form of measurement is the most common when used in combination with another measurement to determine a relationship between involvement and another construct. Unfortunately, this approach fails to measure the rich and complex definition of involvement as summarized by Astin‟s (1984) five postulates. It does not provide the researcher with enough information to draw conclusions of the actual relationship between a behavior and actual level of involvement, since involvement is more complicated than simply the number of hours students spend performing a behavior (Astin, 1984; Davis & Murrell, 1993). National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) scales. A second measure of involvement utilized in multiple studies (Ericson, 2011; Junco, 2012; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2010) relied on scales from the NSSE instrument. Since involvement is one component of engagement (Kuh, 2009), it is logical that part of the instrument used to measure engagement must include a measurement of involvement. Ericson (2011) created one instrument from selections of NSSE to measure involvement by extracting the following scales: diversity within college activities, personal-social growth, non- classroom experience, and miscellaneous student activities. Ericson (2011) scored this instrument following the instructions from NSSE, and created an involvement score. However, the original purpose for creating these scales was not to measure involvement, and the researcher of this study broadened the definition of involvement to include the items measured by these scales. The individual items in this instrument do not fall within the scope of Astin‟s (1984) definition of involvement, since most seek to measure the degree of students‟ development exhibited in their behaviors, rather than focusing
  46. 46. 37 explicitly on the behavioral aspect of involvement. Extracurricular Involvement Inventory (EII). The third measure of involvement is the EII (Winston & Massaro, 1987). This instrument was derived by expanding on Pace‟s (1983) Clubs and Organizations scale from the second edition of the CSEQ, and added further detail implied by Astin‟s (1984) definition of involvement. Winston and Massaro (1987) found that the EII was indeed more successful at measuring high levels of involvement among students when compared to Pace‟s (1983) Clubs and Organizations scale. Most frequently, researchers have used this instrument to study the level of involvement among student leaders and to separate the moderately involved from the highly involved, e.g. J. D. Wilson (1999) and Elliott (2009). However, the EII is not as effective at measuring students who are less involved in co-curricular activities (Winston & Massaro, 1987). Researchers have typically used the EII where the sample was a specifically targeted group of student leaders. College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The final measure of involvement is the CSEQ, which various authors have continually updated since its creation by Pace (1982) in 1978. The original function of the CSEQ was to measure the quality of effort that students invest in their college experience, and understand its impact on the level of achievement of college students (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Pace, 1982). There have been four editions of the CSEQ, and this study will discuss and utilize the most recent edition updated in by Pace and Kuh (1998). The main components of the CSEQ are the scales that measure the frequency and quality of effort students invest in their college experience. There are 14 scales in all. The first seven scales focus on the use of campus resources, and the other seven focus on the extent to which participants
  47. 47. 38 take advantage of personal and social opportunities. These scales measure topics including campus facilities, clubs and organizations, residence hall involvement, athletic and recreational facilities, and cultural activities (Pace, 1982). The Campus Facilities and Clubs and Organizations scales, which remain unchanged since the second edition, provide measures of involvement very closely aligned to Astin‟s (1984) definition (Davis & Murrell, 1993). These scales from the CSEQ ask how frequently students participate in activities such as using campus facilities and participating in leadership activities within organizations, using a four-point Likert scale. The response options are never, occasionally, often, and very often, where a response of never scores one point and a score of very often scores four points. These scales measure optional activities, that can be thought of as student initiative, since they are not mandatory for college credit, and rank participation along a spectrum. This means that the score goes beyond simple frequency of participation and is representative of the quality of effort students exert in their behaviors (Pace, 1982), which is a fundamental aspect of Astin‟s (1984) theory of involvement. One specific study recently utilized the CSEQ, conducted by Pike, Kuh, and Gonyea (2003). The authors sought to empirically link the influence of institutional characteristics to student learning and intellectual development. Using the CSEQ, the researchers were able to determine that student learning and development did in fact occur in meaningful ways at a variety of nation-wide institutions, but that Carnegie classification and institutional mission were not significantly correlated to the gains and experiences of students enrolled at different institutions (Pike, Kuh, & Gonyea, 2003). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) recognized the importance of the CSEQ in the increase
  48. 48. 39 in research conducted on involvement and the quality of student effort. Researchers continue to use the CSEQ to measure the relationship between student involvement and other constructs, with studies published as recently as 2010 (Murphy, 2010; J. R. Wilson, 2010). An item missing from the CSEQ is a measure of how many hours in a given time period students spend involved in co-curricular activities, though the instrument does ask a similar question about academic involvement. A version of this question for co- curricular involvement would be useful in providing a direct quantitative correlation between hours of involvement and other constructs. For the current study. It is important to consider these measures of involvement, each with varying levels of detail and consistency with Astin‟s (1984) original definition. For the purposes of this study, the CSEQ is the most appropriate instrument. It effectively measures students‟ behavior of involvement, and their level of involvement within those behaviors. This meets Astin‟s (1984) qualification of the behavioral, or qualitative, aspect of involvement. The only addition to the CSEQ that becomes necessary is a question asking for hours of co-curricular involvement within a given timeframe, or the quantitative aspect of involvement. With this addition, the CSEQ is by far the best choice to measure involvement as operationalized by this study, when compared to the alternatives. Summary Involvement, as defined as the amount of physical and psychological time and energy that students invest on campus (Astin, 1984), is a crucial element of the college experience. Involvement directly influences student satisfaction, psychosocial and
  49. 49. 40 cognitive development, and persistence to graduation. Student affairs professionals are responsible for increasing student involvement on campus, and Astin (1984) suggested evaluating the efforts of higher education administrators based on their ability to increase such involvement. When looking at the programs, services, and facilities provided within institutions of higher education it is essential to study their impact on student involvement (Astin, 1984; Braxton, 2003; Evans et al., 2010). Likewise, it is essential to understand new phenomena on campus in relation to this involvement, to determine whether they are contributors or threats to student learning and development. This holds particularly true for phenomena that could affect students‟ individual initiative in taking advantage of these opportunities, since students are ultimately responsible for their own participation (Davis & Murrell, 1993). The following section will discuss studies conducted on one such phenomenon, Facebook and how it is used by college students. Facebook Use Among College Students As the social media service of choice, college students spend a great deal of their time using Facebook (Junco, 2012; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). In order to understand if a relationship exists between campus involvement and Facebook use, it is important to begin with a thorough definition of Facebook, the services it provides, and how it is used. From there, a review of research studies will introduce the various negative and positive outcomes linked to college students use of Facebook. Finally, this section will end with measures of Facebook use, including the instrument that this study will employ. Definitions and Contextualization To define Facebook, first it is important to define its overarching category of technology, social media. Social media refers to websites and applications that
  50. 50. 41 individuals can use for social networking, where online communities of users develop interpersonal relationships and share user-generated content through a technological medium (Ericson, 2011; Junco & Chickering, 2010; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2010). Some examples of social media platforms are Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Facebook allows users to generate profiles to connect and stay in touch with their friends and acquaintances, while facilitating the creation and maintenance of large social networks (Junco & Chickering, 2010; Manago et al., 2012). With over 845 million users, Facebook is by far the largest social media service (“Statistics,” 2012). Services offered by Facebook. There are many services that Facebook provides to its users; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, and Wohn (2011) went as far as to call Facebook a “toolkit” (p. 2326), composed of varying tools and services to meet diverse needs. In this way, Facebook is not a single entity, but rather an umbrella service or suite of social media tools. As demonstrated by its history, Facebook is very dynamic, and therefore the list of these tools frequently changes based on the needs of its users – and more commonly, based on the pressures of online competition. In the fall of 2011, the tools that existed within this social media platform could be grouped into three primary categories: staying connected, interacting with peers, and gaming. The first category is staying connected with a Facebook user‟s friends, by browsing the profiles and recent activities of peers whom they connect with through a mutual approval process. Ways of doing this are through viewing others‟ status updates answering the question of “What‟s on your mind,” creating and RSVPing to events, and viewing photos and videos (Junco, 2012; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011).
  51. 51. 42 For the second category of interacting with peers, Facebook users can conduct another group of activities according to Smock et al. (2011). The primary form of interaction is broadcasting status updates to all users connected within one‟s social network. Users can share links with their friends, most frequently to news stories or various other websites. They can send private messages to each other, which are not displayed publicly and typically represent a means of personal communication (Manago et al., 2012). Users can comment on user-generated content, such as pictures, status updates, and recent activities. Facebook has an instant messaging service, called Facebook Chat. Facebook users can also post and tag photos and videos of themselves and their friends (Junco, 2012; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; Smock et al., 2011). For the last group of activities, Facebook users can play games created by third- party application developers hosted within Facebook. Though this list is not exhaustive, it does comprise the majority of Facebook activities in which college students most frequently participate (Junco, 2012; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; S. Smith & Caruso, 2010; Smock et al., 2011). College students’ use of Facebook. In the nationally representative ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, S. Smith and Caruso (2010) reported that 90% of college students use social media services, and 97% of those students use Facebook. Over 90% of students who use social media responded that they logged in to Facebook daily. Similarly, in a nationally-representative study, A. Smith, Rainie, and Zickuhr (2011) found that 86% of college students use Facebook. The popularity of Facebook is also evident in the average number of minutes that students
  52. 52. 43 report spending on the service every day. In a study conducted by Junco (2012) at a mid- sized public northeastern institution, students who had active Facebook accounts reported using the service an average of 101.9 minutes per day. Furthermore, according to the nationally-representative 2011 CIRP Freshmen Survey (Pryor, DeAngelo, Blake, Hurtado, & Tran, 2011), including responses from 203,967 incoming first-year students, only 5.2% of high school students reported not spending any time on social networking sites. Of these incoming students, 51.3% reported spending more than three hours per week using such services. This represents an 11.5% increase over similar responses from 2007 (Pryor et al., 2011). Thus, it appears that incoming students will continue to increase the currently observed levels of Facebook use on campus. Based on another single-institution study, the average number of Facebook friends that existed within one‟s social network was 440 (Manago et al., 2012). These networks were found to comprise several different types of relationships: close connections, activity connections, acquaintances, maintained connections from previous social groups, and strangers or online-only connections. The percentage of close friends within one‟s network was 39%, compared to loose, or superficial, connections, which was 61%. Moreover, the more Facebook friends an individual had, the higher the percentage of loose connections that existed within their network. Manago, Taylor, and Greenfield (2012) believed that these findings suggest that social networks expand primarily through the addition of distant relationships, where increased participation in activities led to a larger social network of loose connections. There are many reasons that students use the tools offered by Facebook.
  53. 53. 44 Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) conducted a study at an urban institution of students‟ motivations for using Facebook. The survey was administered online and promoted through Facebook; the initial sample was snowballed, resulting in 15% of the population not being current college students. Through a series of questions, the researchers asked participants what they did when they logged on to Facebook. Nine distinct significant motives of using Facebook were identified through a factor analysis: expressive information sharing, habit, relaxing entertainment, passing time, cool and new trend, companionship, professional advancement, escape, social interaction, and new friendships (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011). In a study conducted at a large Midwestern institution, Smock et al. (2011) expanded on these nine motives (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011) to determine which of these were reasons to use Facebook in general, in comparison to those that motivated use of specific services within Facebook. They found a relation between general use and the three motives of relaxing entertainment, expressive information sharing, and social interaction. A more significant relationship existed between the other six (habit, passing time, cool and new trend, companionship, professional advancement, escape, and new friendships), and usage of specific Facebook features (Smock et al., 2011). Mobile Facebook use. The newest trend with Facebook is accessing the service on mobile devices, such as smartphones and Internet-enabled cell phones. Of the 62.7% of students that reported owning such a mobile device in the ECAR study, 76.9% said that they accessed Facebook from this device (S. Smith & Caruso, 2010). In Barkuus and Tashiro‟s (2010) qualitative analysis of student Facebook use at a large public institution, one main component of research examined mobile usage. Students who were able to
  54. 54. 45 access Facebook on their mobile device reported an overall increase in usage of the service, though they recognized a distinct change in the manner in which they used Facebook. On a cell phone, students said they were more likely to perform the following activities: respond to messages, briefly check to see if anything new was happening with their friends, or browse recently uploaded photos. Students reported that these behaviors happened much more frequently than before using a mobile device, but they also said they spent much less time on Facebook when using their phone compared to their computer. The authors explained this evolution as students now using Facebook in “short „bursts‟…remaining constantly „in touch‟ with a large set of friends and acquaintances” (Barkhuus & Tashiro, 2010, p. 137). Students indeed reported that this communication pattern was essential to maintaining their social life, particularly for scheduling ad-hoc meetings in clubs or organizations, as well as study groups or class-related exchanges. Negative Outcomes Associated with Facebook Use When Facebook first gained notoriety, the popular media coverage seemed to focus on the various negative outcomes of using Facebook, including privacy concerns, potential harm from the existence of a sometimes-incongruent online persona, and users‟ misconception of their online audience (Ellison et al., 2007). There have been a number of studies conducted to support claims of the relationship of negative outcomes to Facebook use. Interestingly, students in one single-institution study were aware of a majority of the detrimental outcomes associated with using Facebook, as demonstrated by asking them to list these outcomes (Silverman, 2007). This section will highlight some of these studies, including negative linkages to psychosocial, behavioral, and academic

×