Faculty Do Matter:

The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement

Paul D. Umbach
Project Manager and Research Analyst
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
1900 E. 10th St.
Eigenmann Hall, Suite 419
Bloomington, IN 47406
[email protected]
812.856.3004

Matthew R. Wawrzynski
Michigan State University
Assistant Professor of Higher, Adult, & Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
426 Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1034
517.355.6617
[email protected]
 2

Faculty Do Matter:
The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement

Abstract

This study uses two national data sets to explore the relationship between faculty
practices and student engagement. Our findings suggest that students report higher levels of
engagement and learning at institutions where faculty members use active and collaborative
learning techniques, engage students in experiences, emphasize higher-order cognitive activities
in the classroom, interact with students, challenge students academically, and value enriching
educational experiences. In general, faculty at liberal arts colleges are the most likely to engage
their students.
 3

Faculty Do Matter:
The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement

The quality and value of an undergraduate education in the past decade received, and

continues to receive, scrutiny by various stakeholders associated with the higher education

community. Much of the energy surrounding the undergraduate experience and student learning

was placed on the two major responsibilities of faculty, teaching and research (Fairweather,

1996, 2002; Marsh & Hattie, 2002). The regulation of time allocated to these two roles was

quickly becoming one of the most salient issues in higher education. Unfortunately, much of the

debate about the nature of faculty work was shrouded in myth, opinion, and conjecture

(Fairweather, 2002). Myths, such as a faculty member being highly involved in teaching,

engages students in the undergraduate experience resulting in greater student learning gains were

important to debunk or substantiate. As a result, assessing the impact that faculty behaviors and

interactions with students in the classroom have on the undergraduate classroom experience was

ripe for examination in the current study. Conducting empirical research that focus on faculty

behaviors and interactions with students in the classroom will advance the literature on the role

faculty play in student learning.

Barr and Tagg (1995) suggested a paradigm shift to improve the quality of undergraduate

education (i.e., from providing instruction to students, to producing student learning) that would

create learning centered campuses and maximize students’ learning. However, creating a

student-centered campus necessitates knowing how students learn, understanding barriers to

student learning, and developing classroom techniques that promote learning among college

students (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998).

Several national reports have echoed the call for studying the undergraduate experience.

An American Imperative turned improving the quality of undergraduate education to a

 4

conversation on how to place student learning at the core of the academy (Wingspread Group on

Higher Education, 1993). However, doing so requires a better understanding of variables that

contribute, both positively and negatively, to what matters most to learning.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education concluded in Measuring Up

2000 and Measuring Up 2002 that a lack of information permitting systemic or systematic

comparisons on the impact of college on students has resulted in little knowledge about student

learning. As a result, the authors of Measuring Up 2002 called upon national and state efforts to

create more powerful measures of educational performance by assessing student learning

(National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2002).

Where the traditional “quality measures” (e.g., selectivity in admissions, the number of

PhDs among the faculty, library holdings, financial resources, and institutional prestige from

faculty research) used to articulate an undergraduate education were once accepted, they have

become increasingly suspect in terms of their validity to measure excellence in undergraduate

education (Kuh, 2001; Pascarella, 2001). A 1995 report by the Education Commission of the

States, Making Quality Count, criticized these often used “quality” measures, stating that these

factors say nothing about how and why students were actively engaged in the learning process,

the extent and nature of student interactions with faculty, the focus and intensity of academic

experiences, and the overall level of student engagement (Pascarella, 2001).

Purpose

Despite the call by the Education Commission of the States in Making Quality Count

(1995) to create new ways to measure and monitor the quality of undergraduate education, little

new knowledge has been generated about indicators of educational practice that predict student

engagement (Pascarella, 2001) or the approaches that faculty take to effective educational
 5

practices (Kezar, 1999). Kuh (2001) and Pascarella (2001) posited that a quality undergraduate

education was one that engaged students in proven good educational practices (e.g., focus and

quality of undergraduate teaching, interactions with faculty and peers, and involvement in

coursework) and that added value to student learning. Studying self-reported student engagement

behaviors was important and a necessary step in measuring the quality of undergraduate

education; yet, it was equally important to understand and evaluate what faculty practices

influenced student learning gains (Wingspread Report, 1993). A good deal was known about

how faculty spend their time, what instructional methods they used, and satisfaction with

teaching (Menges, 2000). Much less was known about how these variables influenced gains in

student learning. Therefore, the we use two nationally representative sources of data for

undergraduate student engagement, faculty practices, and institutional characteristics to explore

indicators of gains in student learning. More specifically, we examine the context created by

faculty on campus and its relationship to student engagement, student perceptions of

environment, and student self-reported gains. Therefore, this paper addresses the following

research questions:

1. Do faculty members create a context for learning through their behaviors and attitudes

that relates to student engagement behaviors, student perceptions of environment, and

student self-reported gains?

2. Are these faculty behaviors and attitudes related to institutional characteristics?

Conceptual Framework

Pascarella (2001) argued that assessing effective educational practices that lead to student

learning required empirically based evidence linked to the college impact literature and not just

by factors that seem as if they should be important. Researchers studying students’ interactions
 6

with the college environment relied heavily on models advanced by Tinto (1993) and Astin

(1993). These two models suggested that when students are engaged in college experiences, it

was more likely that student learning, retention, and a quality undergraduate experience as

outcomes occurred. In what has become a widely cited piece on retention, the central premise of

Tinto’s (1993) model was that students’ decisions to persist or withdraw from college depend on

their successful academic and social integration within the college. Part of this successful

integration was dependent upon the favorable daily interactions between faculty and students.

Astin’s (1993) model of inputs-environments-outcomes assessed the impacts that various

institutional practices and environmental experiences (e.g., faculty-student contact, pedagogical

techniques) have on student outcomes (e.g., student engagement and student learning).

In their landmark publication, Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education,

Chickering and Gamson (1987) outlined seven engagement indicators predicted to directly

influence the quality of students’ learning and their educational experiences. Five of the

principles advanced by Chickering and Gamson were directly relevant to the current study:

encouraging cooperation among students, encouraging active learning, communicating high

expectations, encouraging contact between students and faculty, and using active learning

techniques.

In accordance with Chickering and Gamson, several researchers (Astin, 1993; Ewell &

Jones, 1996; Fries-Britt, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993, 2000) documented the

strong association of both formal and informal faculty-student contact to enhanced student

learning. These interactions influenced the degree to which students became engaged with

faculty and were frequently the best predictors of student persistence (Braxton, Sullivan, &

Johnson, 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini; Stage & Hossler, 2000).
 7

Furthermore, if educational practices lead to student engagement and student engagement leads

to certain outcomes of college (e.g., student learning and retention) then it can be said that

educational practices indirectly lead to student outcomes from higher education.

Peter Ewell (1997) argued that if student learning is to be improved, then it is important

to study institutional and faculty engagement practices which promote student learning. Much of

the most recent research evaluating the quality of undergraduate education has concentrated on

self-reported student engagement behaviors (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

Astin (1993), Chickering (1969), and Chickering and Resiser (1993) suggested that

sources of influence need to be taken into account if one was to derive a valid estimate of the

organizational or environmental emphases of the institution attended. Therefore, the

organizational emphases of faculty behaviors and institutional characteristics were examined to

determine the influence they have on student learning and student engagement.

In addition to the college impact literature, this study draws on theoretical perspectives

from a model proposed by Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) and research by Fairweather (1996,

2002). The Blackburn and Lawrence model is an appropriate framework for examining the

influence of faculty productivity on educational practices because it is an empirically tested

model across academic disciplines and institutions. This model also integrated the research on

teaching and research productivity and was grounded in psychological and sociological theory

with motivation theories. Using these frameworks enhanced our understanding of how

institutional characteristics and faculty inputs (e.g., behaviors, satisfaction, experience, and

student contact) influenced student engagement that lead to student learning.

 8

Data and Analysis

This study uses two national data sets to explore the relationship between faculty

practices and student engagement and learning. Combining these databases allows for a

comprehensive understanding of the faculty and institutional characteristics that influence

student learning and student engagement. The first data source for this study is the National

Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The NSSE survey is designed to assess the extent to

which students are engaged in empirically-derived good educational practices and what they gain

from their college experience (Kuh, 2001). Only NSSE students from the 137 schools that

surveyed their faculty were included. The sample for this study consists of 20,226 senior students

and 22,033 first-year students who completed the NSSE in spring 2003.

The second database came from a parallel study examining the attitudes and behaviors of

faculty at institutions participating in NSSE. In the spring of 2003, a survey was administered at

137 colleges and universities. The instrument is designed to measure faculty expectations for

student engagement in educational practices that are known to be linked with high levels of

learning and development. Additionally, the instrument examines how faculty members structure

their classroom and out-of-class work. The final data set included 14,336 faculty members who

completed the survey.

We use hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a two stage analysis of our data. Because

we are interested in the context created by faculty and its relationship to students, we are faced

with a decision about unit of analysis. Should they build regression models by aggregating both

faculty and student data to the institution level, or should they attach institution-level

characteristics (faculty aggregates) to students? If we build our models at the institution level, we

will be prone to “ecologically fallacy”, whereby individual differences are masked (King, 1999;
 9

Kreft & deLeeuw, 1998). For example, an analysis based on colleges might reveal that students

at smaller colleges are more engaged in effective educational practices than students at large

colleges, while an analysis of small colleges might reveal that many students at large colleges are

as engaged or more engaged than small college students.

Research where institution-level characteristics are attached to individuals is flawed as

well (Ethington, 1997). First, it violates the general assumption of ordinary least squares

regression (OLS): Observations are independent of one another. Second, it assumes that

individuals within a group are affected identically by group-level characteristics. Finally, the

inclusion of group-level variables into an OLS regression equation leads to mis-estimation of

standard errors and the wrong number of degrees of freedom, increasing the likelihood of

committing a Type I error (i.e., indicating that something is statistically significant when it is

not).

Using HLM overcomes the problems associated with unit of analysis by simultaneously

modeling both individual and institutional effects. HLM partitions the variance between the

institution and the student, resulting in more accurate parameter estimates (Raudenbush & Bryk,

2002). This makes it possible to determine what is an individual-level effect or a group-level

effect. Because these effects can be partitioned, each can be modeled with their respective

characteristics.

In HLM, we were able to allow the intercept to vary, thereby partitioning the variance

between the institution and the student. For our models, we allowed the intercept to vary by

institution and model it using institutional characteristics such as average faculty behaviors and

attitudes.
 10

In the first stage of our analysis, we employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to

explore the context created by faculty and their relationship with student experiences. In other

words, we modeled the relationship between average faculty behaviors at an institution and

student engagement and learning.

Appendix A displays the items contained in each of the constructs and the alpha

reliability of the constructs used in our models. Our dependent variables included several

constructs that represent student engagement (e.g., academic challenge, active and collaborative

learning, student-faculty interaction), student perceptions of support (e.g., supportive campus

environment, interpersonal support, support for academic success, student satisfaction) and

student self-reported gains. At the student level, we included controls for age, race, gender,

transfer status, on-campus residence, student athlete, greek affiliation, major, full-time, parents'

education (See Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of all variables included in our models). At

the institution level, we controlled for institutional characteristics such as Carnegie

Classification, size, sector, and urbanicity. Because we sought to understand the relationship

between student experiences and average faculty behaviors at an institution, we created several

faculty constructs and aggregated them by institution.

We modeled institutional averages of six faculty constructs as contextual variables and

used them to model the average experiences of students at an institution by including them in our

level two model of the random intercept (average student experiences). The six constructs

represented course-related interactions with students, out-of-class interactions with students,

faculty use of active and collaborative learning techniques, level of academic challenge faculty

provided students, level of importance faculty placed on enriching educational experiences, and

amount of emphasis faculty place on higher order cognitive activities. We built a model for each
 11

of these including only the aggregated faculty behaviors at level two. We then entered

institutional characteristics (urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie Classification) as

controls at level two as a second block of variables for all six models. We ran separate models

for first-year students and seniors.

After exploring the relationship between the context created by faculty and student

engagement, perceptions of support, and gains, we then examined the characteristics of

institutions where these faculty behaviors occurred. Because we were interested in understanding

the relationships between institutional characteristics and faculty behaviors and attitudes, we

again used HLM to model our six faculty variables. We allowed the intercept to vary and

modeled institutional averages by entering institutional characteristics at level two. We included

the institution-level variables into our models in two blocks. The first block includes Carnegie

Classification with Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts Colleges as the reference group. In the second

block, we added sector, urbanicity (urban was used as the reference group), and undergraduate

headcount or size. At level one, we controled for the following faculty characteristics: age, years

teaching, part-time, race, gender, rank, and discipline of academic appointment.

To aid in the interpretation of our model results, we calculated effect sizes for all of our

models (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). An effect size is the proportion of a standard deviation

change in the dependent variable as a result of a one-unit change in an independent variable. We

standardized all of the continuous independent and dependent measures in the models, so the

unstandardized coefficients represent effect sizes. The larger the effect size, the more likely the

differences between groups represent performance that warrants serious discussion and, perhaps,

intervention. Taking the advice of Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991), we considered an effect size of
 12

.10 or less to reflect a trivial difference, between .10 and .30 small, between .30 and .50

moderate, and greater than .50 large.

Results

Student-Faculty Interactions

Course-related interactions appear to be positively related with student engagement (See

table 2). Not surprisingly, average faculty member reports of course-related interactions with

students were significantly positively related to student reports of student-faculty interaction.

Additionally, even after including all controls, campuses where faculty report frequent course-

related interactions both first-year and senior students were more challenged and engaged in

active and collaborative learning activities.

In general, students have more positive perceptions of supportive campuses where faculty

members interact frequently with them on issues related to their courses. For first-year students,

average faculty reports of frequency of course-related interactions were positively related to a

supportive campus environment, interpersonal support, and support for learning. However, after

institutional controls are introduced, the effect reduced and became insignificant. Yet, for

seniors, even after controls are introduced, course-related interactions were positively related to

all three measures of environmental support.

Gains while in college also were positively related to course-related interactions with

faculty. On college campuses where faculty frequently interact with students related to courses,

both first-year and senior students reported greater gains in personal/social development, general

education knowledge, and practical competencies.

Out-of-class interactions appeared to have less of an effect. As expected, students on

campuses where faculty frequently interact with students outside of class reported more
 13

interactions with faculty. Faculty out-of-class interactions also were positively related with active

and collaborative learning activities, but the effect all but disappears after institutional controls

were added.

Active and Collaborative Learning Techniques

College campuses where faculty employ active and collaborative learning techniques

have students who were more engaged. Table 3 presents the level two coefficients of faculty

interactions with students. Active and collaborative learning techniques were positively related

with levels academic challenge and student-faculty interactions for both first year and senior

students, even after all controls are included in the models.

Students also appeared to feel more supported on campuses where faculty use active and

collaborative learning methods. In particular, both first-year students and seniors report higher

levels of support for learning in a context where faculty use these techniques.

Our results suggested a positive relationship between college environments where faculty

used active and collaborative learning techniques and student gains. First-year students and

seniors reported greater gains in personal social development, general education knowledge, and

practical competencies on campuses where faculty members engaged them using active and

collaborative learning exercises.

Academic Challenge

Table 4 displays the results from our models where we used average faculty reports of

academic challenge (at level two) to predict student engagement, student perceptions of their

environment, and student self-reported gains. Campuses where faculty challenged their students

were more likely to engage their students in other ways. For example, average faculty level of

academic challenge was positively related to student (both first-year and senior) experiences with
 14

active and collaborative learning. Additionally, first-year students are more likely to interact with

faculty on campuses where those faculty offer greater academic challenges.

Faculty reports of academic challenge seemed to have little or no relationship with

student perceptions of their environment. Before all controls were entered into the models,

students appeared to feel slightly more supported at campuses where faculty challenged them

academically. However, all of these effects became insignificant after other institutional

characteristics were entered into the model.

Student gains appeared to be positively related to the levels of challenge faculty

introduced on a campus. For first-year students, the level of academic challenge was positively

related to gains in general education knowledge and practical competencies. Seniors reported

greater gains in personal/social development and general education knowledge on campuses

where faculty challenged them.

Emphasis on Higher-Order Cognitive Activities

Table 5 presents the level-two coefficients of faculty emphasis on higher order thinking

activities. Colleges where faculty emphasized higher-order cognitive activities were more likely

to engage students in effective educational practices. For first-year students, campus emphasis on

higher-cognitive activities was statistically significantly positively related to academic challenge,

greater interactions with faculty, and more involvement in active and collaborative learning.

Seniors reported higher levels of academic challenge and active and collaborative learning at

colleges where faculty utilized higher-order activities in the classroom.

Emphasis on higher-order activities does not significantly relate to perceptions of

support. However, both seniors and first-year students reported greater gains in general education
 15

on campuses where faculty emphasized higher-order activities. A modest relationship between

these activities and gains in practical competencies exists for seniors.

Importance Placed on Enriching Educational Activities

The importance faculty place on co-curricular activities that enhance learning appeared to

create a unique learning environment (See table 6). Seniors and first-year students are more

engaged on campuses where faculty placed a high level of importance on participation in

enriching educational experiences. Level of importance was significantly positively related to

academic challenge, student faculty interaction, and active and collaborative learning.

Students, in particular seniors, have more positive perceptions of their environment at

colleges where faculty members believed that enriching activities were important. In general,

they felt more supported and believed the campus supported their learning. Additionally,

satisfaction was positively related to the importance faculty placed on enriching activities.

Level of importance faculty placed on co-curricular activities also was positively related

to student self-reported gains. Students on campuses where faculty emphasized these activities

reported greater gains in personal/social development, general education, and practical

competencies.

Faculty Behaviors and Attitudes

Our last set of models attempted to answer the second research question posed in this

paper. Table 7 displays the coefficients from our level two models predicting faculty behaviors

and attitudes. We observed a pattern when we examined the Block I where only Carnegie

Classification is included at level two. For nearly every model, faculty members at liberal arts

colleges (LACs) were statistically significantly more likely to engage in the behaviors or believe

in their importance. Faculty members at LACs, on average, interacted more with students,
 16

challenged students academically, used active and collaborative learning exercises, and believed

enriching educational activities are important. With only one exception, active and collaborative

learning, did LACs not score statistically significantly higher than all other institution types. This

evidence does suggest that faculty at LACs were the most likely to create an environment that

led to student engagement and learning.

Yet when other controls are entered, some of these differences disappear or are reduced.

For example, faculty at Doctoral Research Extensive Universities (DRU-EXT) were no longer

statistically significantly different than LACs in their frequency of course-related interactions

with students. LACs were still significantly more likely than the three other Carnegie types to

interact with students on course-related issues. Private colleges also were more likely than public

colleges to interact with students about their courses.

Similarly, nearly all of the differences in out-of-class interactions between Carnegie

groups were not significant after controls were introduced. Institutional size was negatively

related to out-of-class interactions; and faculty at rural campuses were more likely to engage

students out-of-class.

Even after other institutional characteristics were introduced, faculty at LACs were more

likely to employ active and collaborative pedagogies than faculty at other institution types.

Additionally, selectivity was negatively related with faculty use of active and collaborative

learning.

Except for Doctoral Research – Intensive Universities (DRU-INT) faculty at LACs were

more likely to emphasize higher-order cognitive activities, even after other variables were

entered in the models. It was also important to note that urban institutions were the least likely to
 17

emphasize these activities. As with active and collaborative learning, selectivity was negatively

related with faculty emphasis on higher-order activities.

After controlling for other institutional characteristics, faculty at LACs appeared to

challenge their students at higher levels than any other institution type. Private colleges were

more likely than public colleges to have faculty that challenge their students. Our results also

suggested that faculty at rural colleges challenged their students less than faculty at

suburban/large town colleges.

Finally, faculty at LACS placed a higher level of importance on enriching activities than

do faculty at other types of institutions. Private college faculty were also more likely than their

public college counterparts in the value of enriching educational experiences.

Limitations

This study was not without its limitations. We offer three for consideration. First, we are

unable to match students with faculty directly. In other words, we cannot know if the students

used in this study ever enrolled in a course from any of the faculty surveyed. While this does

present some limitations as to what conclusions we can draw, we are able to use the results to

understand the learning environment created by faculty on the campuses under study. In fact, we

do see relationships that suggest a context created by faculty that differs across campuses.

Second, we recognize that the effect sizes of the coefficients presented are small. While

we must be guarded in the conclusions we draw from small effects, we argue that our findings

are not without merit for two reasons. First, related to our first limitation, we suspect that we may

be underestimating the effects because of the possibility of distal relationships between faculty

and students. Second, the pattern of the effect sizes and the magnitude of other effect sizes

cannot be overlooked.
 18

Another limitation is related to the validity of self-reports, in particular self-reported

gains. As Pascarella (2001) and others point out, gain scores may be confounded by students’

entering characteristics. However, Pike (1999) provides some evidence to suggest that gain

scores are not significantly related to entering ability. Although the concerns about self-reported

data are legitimate, the gains measures are only one of several sets of dependent variables used in

this study.

Discussion and Implications

Our findings suggest that faculty do matter. The educational context created by faculty

behaviors and attitudes has a dramatic effect on student learning and engagement. Institutions

where faculty engage students in and out of the classroom and place a high priority on enriching

educational experiences had students who felt supported and were active participants in their

learning.

One of the major criticisms of higher education is that colleges and universities have

failed to focus on undergraduate education and student learning in particular. Our results

articulate where faculty can make a difference in student learning and the undergraduate

experience. Astin (1993) concluded over a decade ago that faculty members play an important

link in the development of undergraduate students, and our study supports this notion. However,

one of the missing pieces from Astin’s study was how the faculty behaviors and attitudes

impacted student learning and student engagement.

Knowing where faculty can make a difference will assist them in focusing on the learning

aspects of the undergraduate experience. Barr and Tag (1995) advocated for a learning-centered

campus, and recognized that focusing on the undergraduate experience would result in a

paradigm shift (i.e., from providing instruction to students, to producing student learning). This
 19

paradigm shift should result in a greater value being placed on teaching in the tenure rewards

structure. Yet, despite, the call for this paradigm shift, Hattie and Marsh (1996) found that

teaching and research responsibilities are far from being equally valued. However, placing an

emphasis on a learning-centered campus necessitates a greater focus on teaching and determining

which pedagogy produces greater gains in student learning. Our findings suggest that while

faculty at liberal arts colleges have indeed created these learning environments, perhaps faculty

at other types of colleges and universities have not been as effective at creating student-centered

campuses.

In an attempt to understand the role of faculty in creating a student-centered campus, we

attempted to bridge the gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence on how instructional

methods among other faculty attitudes and behaviors influence gains in students learning. Many

lessons can be learned from these findings. First, our study revealed faculty practices (e.g., active

learning, higher-order cognitive activities) create an environment that relates to student

engagement behaviors, student perceptions of the environment, and student self-reported gains.

Focusing on specific practices that predict student engagement increases our understanding of

how we can enhance undergraduate education in general, and student engagement and student

learning in particular. Recruiting and training faculty committed to these activities will create a

collegiate environment that will have a dramatic impact on student learning.

Those responsible for implementing tenure review policies may also find this information

helpful when evaluating the teaching components of the tenure review process. In his landmark

publication, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Boyer (1990) advocated

for a multidimensional definition of teaching that included engaging and fostering student

learning (Shulman & Hutchings, 1998). One of the strengths of colleges and universities is the
 20

variation among them. The higher education community must create a better method of

measuring effective pedagogical methods that lead to student learning and disseminate this

knowledge.

Additionally, empirical evidence on the pedagogical methods that predict the greatest

gains in student learning and engagement will help anyone responsible for teaching. Rhoads

(2001) articulated that the “best” universities and colleges of the future will be those that

demonstrate the most effective gains in learning and learning skills among their students. Our

results suggest that faculty seeking to improve their teaching might hold higher expectations of

their students. They also should consider including active and collaborative learning activities in

their classroom instruction or emphasize higher-order cognitive activities such as the application

of learning or synthesis of ideas. Interactions with students in and out of the classroom also can

have a profound effect on student learning.

Our analyses indicate that the importance placed on enriching educational experiences

may yield some of the strongest effects on students. This suggests that faculty attitudes and

beliefs about the student experience can play a role in creating an environment that fosters

student learning. Perhaps the importance placed on enriching experiences is an indirect measure

of a campus culture that values a broad range of educational activities (e.g., practica, internships,

study abroad). Changing a campus culture can take time, however institutions seeking change

might consider attitudes as they hire new faculty.

Conclusion

In many ways, this study raises more questions than it answers. Further research may

include looking at student major environments and the role that disciplinary culture plays.

Studies of the interplay of research and teaching on student learning might also prove useful.
 21

Classroom-based studies also would provide further information about the pedagogical

techniques used by faculty to engage students in the learning process.

The impact that a faculty member can have on the student experience can be seen in and

out of the classroom. We found that faculty behaviors and attitudes affect students profoundly,

which suggests that faculty members may play the single-most important role in student learning.

Because faculty play a critical component of the collegiate experience, colleges and universities

need to find ways (perhaps new ways) to support and reward faculty in their teaching role.
 22

References

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate

education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.

Blackburn, R., & Lawrence, J. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.V., & Johnson Jr, R.M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college

student departure. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education Research (pp. 107-164). Agathon

Press.

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chickering, A.W., Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.

Education Commission of the States. (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate education.

Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Ethington, C. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In

J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 12, pp. 165–

194. Edison, NJ: Agathon.

Ewell, P. (1997). Organizing for learning: A new imperative. AAHE Bulletin, 50, 3-6.
 23

Ewell, P. & Jones, D. (1996). Indicators of “good practice” in undergraduate education: A

handbook for development and implementation. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher

Education Management Systems.

Fairweather, J. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public

service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fairweather, J. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional

policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 26-48.

Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The Relationship between research and teaching: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507-542.

Hurtado, S. & Carter, (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial

climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324-

345.

Kezar, A. (1999). Higher education trends (1997-1999): Faculty. Washington, DC: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

King, G. (1999). A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual

Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey

of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.

Marsh, H.W. & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching

effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of

Higher Education, 73, 604-641.

 24

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2000). Measuring Up 2000: The

state-by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2002). Measuring Up 2002: The

state-by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

Menges, R. (2000). Shortcomings of research on evaluating and improving teaching in higher

education. In K.E. Ryna (Ed.), Evaluating teaching in higher education: A vision for the

future. (New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 83) (pp. 5-11). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we even close?,

Change, 33 (3), 19-23.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from

twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rhoads, F.H.T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American University. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data

analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shulman, L. S., & Hutchings, P. (1998). About the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo

Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Stage, F. K. & Hossler, D. (2000). Where is the student? Linking student behaviors, college

choice, and college persistence. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure

puzzle (pp. 170-195). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

 25

Stage, F.K., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms:

What does learning theory have to say. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education

Reports.

Tinto, V. (1993). Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. 2nd. ed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in

student departure. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 81-

94). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations

for higher education. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation.

 26

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables Included in Models

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Student Variables
Athlete 0.000 1.000 0.102 0.303
African American 0.000 1.000 0.060 0.238
Native American 0.000 1.000 0.007 0.082
Asian Pacific American 0.000 1.000 0.048 0.214
Latino/a 0.000 1.000 0.044 0.204
Other Race 0.000 1.000 0.004 0.064
Female 0.000 1.000 0.658 0.474
Greek 0.000 1.000 0.111 0.315
Transfer 0.000 1.000 0.238 0.426
Full-time 0.000 1.000 0.899 0.301
Live on campus 0.000 1.000 0.467 0.499
Parental Education -1.850 2.147 0.000 1.000
Age -1.024 9.420 0.000 1.000
Major - Realistic 0.000 1.000 0.016 0.127
Major - Investigative 0.000 1.000 0.272 0.445
Major - Artistic 0.000 1.000 0.081 0.273
Major - Social 0.000 1.000 0.091 0.287
Major - Enterprising 0.000 1.000 0.256 0.437
Major - Conventional 0.000 1.000 0.029 0.169
Major - Other 0.000 1.000 0.254 0.435
Faculty Variables
Female 0.000 1.000 0.441 0.497
African American 0.000 1.000 0.025 0.155
Native American 0.000 1.000 0.005 0.071
Asian Pacific American 0.000 1.000 0.026 0.160
Latino/a 0.000 1.000 0.005 0.069
Other Race 0.000 1.000 0.071 0.257
Age -2.701 3.956 0.000 1.000
Years Teaching -1.462 3.363 0.000 1.000
Professor 0.000 1.000 0.236 0.424
Associate Professor 0.000 1.000 0.227 0.419
Assistant Professor 0.000 1.000 0.254 0.436
Part-time 0.000 1.000 0.147 0.354
Discipline - Realistic 0.000 1.000 0.002 0.041
Discipline - Investigative 0.000 1.000 0.198 0.399
Discipline - Artistic 0.000 1.000 0.116 0.320
Discipline - Social 0.000 1.000 0.191 0.393
Discipline - Enterprising 0.000 1.000 0.152 0.359
Discipline - Other 0.000 1.000 0.341 0.330
Institution-Level Variables
Doctoral Research - Extensive 0.000 1.000 0.066 0.249
Doctoral Research - Intensive 0.000 1.000 0.102 0.304
Master's I and II 0.000 1.000 0.453 0.500
Baccalaureate - Liberal Arts 0.000 1.000 0.168 0.375
Baccalaureate - General 0.000 1.000 0.175 0.382
Other Carnegie 0.000 1.000 0.036 0.188
Urban 0.000 1.000 0.182 0.388
Middle 0.000 0.000 0.577 0.457
Rural 0.000 1.000 0.241 0.429
Selectivity (Barron's) -2.117 2.808 0.000 1.000
Size (undergraduate headcount -0.849 4.525 0.000 1.000
 27

Table 2. Level Two Coefficients of Average Institutional Faculty Interactions with Students after Controls1

Course-Related Interactions Out-of-Class Interactions

First-Year Students Seniors First-Year Students Seniors
Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II
Student Engagement
Academic Challenge 0.11 *** 0.07 ** 0.11 *** 0.05 * 0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.01

Student-Faculty Interactions 0.16 *** 0.11 *** 0.13 *** 0.09 *** 0.08 ** 0.03 0.10 *** 0.07 ***

Active and Collaborative 0.15 *** 0.11 *** 0.11 *** 0.10 *** 0.07 * 0.02 0.04 * 0.02

Student Perceptions of
Environment
Supportive 0.08 ** 0.04 0.09 *** 0.07 ** 0.01 0.01 0.06 ** 0.03
Interpersonal 0.07 ** 0.02 0.07 *** 0.04 * 0.02 0.01 0.04 * 0.01
Support for Learning 0.06 ** 0.04 + 0.09 *** 0.06 * 0.00 0.00 0.07 *** 0.04 +

Satisfaction 0.02 0.01 0.04 + 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.00

Student Self-Reported
Gains
Personal/Social 0.07 ** 0.07 ** 0.10 *** 0.09 ** 0.02 0.02 0.05 + 0.01

General Education 0.08 *** 0.06 ** 0.10 *** 0.07 ** 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Practical Competencies 0.04 * 0.04 + 0.05 * 0.05 * -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

1
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, race, gender, transfer, live on campus, athlete, greek, major, full-time, parents' education; Level two controls
(Block II) - urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie Classification
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 28

Table 3. Level Two Coefficients of Faculty Use of Active and Collaborative Learning
Techniques after Controls2

First-Year Students Seniors

Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II
Student Engagement
Academic Challenge 0.07 ** 0.07 ** 0.09 *** 0.11 ***

Student-Faculty Interactions 0.12 *** 0.08 ** 0.09 *** 0.06 *

Active and Collaborative 0.18 *** 0.16 *** 0.15 *** 0.15 ***

Student Perceptions of
Environment
Supportive 0.06 * 0.04 0.07 ** 0.05 +
Interpersonal 0.05 * 0.03 0.06 ** 0.03
Support for Learning 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.07 ** 0.06 *

Satisfaction 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 *

Student Self-Reported
Gains
Personal/Social 0.07 ** 0.08 ** 0.08 ** 0.09 **

General Education 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.07 ** 0.08 **

Practical Competencies 0.04 * 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.08 **

2
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, race, gender, transfer, live on campus, athlete, greek, major,
full-time, parents' education; Level two controls (Block II) - urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie
Classification
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 29

Table 4. Level Two Coefficients of Faculty Reports of Academic Challenge of Students after
Controls3

First-Year Students Seniors

Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II
Student Engagement
Academic Challenge 0.15 *** 0.11 *** 0.13 *** 0.11 ***

Student-Faculty Interactions 0.10 *** 0.05 * 0.07 ** 0.02

Active and Collaborative 0.13 *** 0.10 *** 0.07 *** 0.07 ***

Student Perceptions of
Environment
Supportive 0.05 * 0.01 0.05 * 0.00
Interpersonal 0.04 * 0.00 0.03 0.00
Support for Learning 0.04 * 0.01 0.05 * 0.01

Satisfaction 0.01 0.00 0.04 + 0.03

Student Self-Reported
Gains
Personal/Social 0.05 + 0.03 0.08 ** 0.06 *

General Education 0.08 *** 0.05 ** 0.11 *** 0.08 ***

Practical Competencies 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.03 0.04 +

3
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, race, gender, transfer, live on campus, athlete, greek, major,
full-time, parents' education; Level two controls (Block II) - urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie
Classification
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 30

Table 5. Level Two Coefficients of Faculty Emphasis on Higher-Order Cognitive Activities after
Controls4

First-Year Students Seniors

Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II
Student Engagement
Academic Challenge 0.10 *** 0.09 *** 0.08 ** 0.08 **

Student-Faculty Interactions 0.07 ** 0.05 * 0.04 + 0.02

Active and Collaborative 0.10 *** 0.09 *** 0.08 *** 0.07 **

Student Perceptions of
Environment
Supportive 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Interpersonal 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01
Support for Learning -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Satisfaction -0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.01

Student Self-Reported
Gains
Personal/Social 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04

General Education 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.05 * 0.05 **

Practical Competencies 0.02 0.02 0.03 + 0.03 +

4
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, race, gender, transfer, live on campus, athlete, greek, major,
full-time, parents' education; Level two controls (Block II) - urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie
Classification
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 31

Table 6. Level Two Coefficients of Importance Placed on Enriching Educational Activities5

First-Year Students Seniors

Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II
Student Engagement
Academic Challenge 0.13 *** 0.10 *** 0.11 *** 0.09 ***

Student-Faculty Interactions 0.14 *** 0.09 *** 0.12 *** 0.08 **

Active and Collaborative 0.16 *** 0.14 *** 0.10 *** 0.10 ***

Student Perceptions of
Environment
Supportive 0.08 ** 0.04 0.10 *** 0.07 **
Interpersonal 0.06 * 0.01 0.06 *** 0.03 +
Support for Learning 0.07 ** 0.05 * 0.00 0.08 **

Satisfaction 0.03 0.02 0.08 *** 0.07 **

Student Self-Reported
Gains
Personal/Social 0.09 *** 0.09 *** 0.11 *** 0.09 **

General Education 0.08 *** 0.05 * 0.11 *** 0.07 ***

Practical Competencies 0.04 * 0.04 * 0.04 ** 0.06 **

5
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, race, gender, transfer, live on campus, athlete, greek, major,
full-time, parents' education; Level two controls (Block II) - urbanicity, sector, size, selectivity, Carnegie
Classification
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 32

Table 7. Level Two Coefficients from Models Predicting Faculty Behaviors and Attitudes6

Faculty Behaviors and Attitudes

Course-Related Out-of-Class Active and Importance of
Interactions Interactions Collaborative Higher-Order Activities Academic Challenge Enriching Activities

Dependent Variables Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II Block I Block II
Doctoral Research - Extensive -0.35 *** -0.11 -0.31 *** -0.06 -0.35 *** -0.17 + -0.17 * -0.19 * -0.39 *** -0.26 * -0.47 *** -0.27 *
Doctoral Research - Intensive -0.29 *** -0.16 + -0.19 ** -0.08 -0.21 *** -0.15 * -0.07 -0.10 -0.29 *** -0.22 ** -0.44 *** -0.31 ***
Masters I and II -0.21 ** -0.15 * -0.12 * -0.07 -0.12 * -0.13 * -0.09 + -0.14 ** -0.29 *** -0.27 *** -0.35 *** -0.28 ***
Baccalaureate - General -0.14 + -0.15 * -0.09 -0.09 + -0.05 -0.12 + -0.11 * -0.16 * -0.23 ** -0.34 ** -0.36 *** -0.37 ***
Other Carnegie -0.11 -0.08 -0.20 + -0.18 -0.12 -0.15 0.16 0.08 -0.32 * -0.34 * -0.42 *** -0.40 ***
Private 0.15 ** 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.12 + 0.18 **
Other Urbanicity -0.03 0.02 -0.02 -0.09 + -0.06 0.00
Rural -0.03 0.08 * -0.04 -0.17 *** -0.12 * -0.07
Selectivity -0.01 -0.01 -0.08 ** -0.05 * -0.02 -0.01
Size -0.04 -0.07 * -0.02 0.01 -0.02 -0.03

6
Level one controls (included in both blocks) - age, years teaching, part-time, race, gender, rank, discipline of appointment
***p<.001, **p<.01, *<p.05, +p<.10
 33

APPENDIX A

CONSTRUCTS AND VARIABLES QUESTION RESPONSE SETS

FACULTY CONSTRUCTS
Course-Related Interaction (α=.76)
Discuss grades or assignments with you None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Talk about career plans with you None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Discuss ideas from readings or classes with you outside of class None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Use e-mail to communicate with you None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Out-of-Class Interaction (α=.65)
Working with students on activities other than course work (committees, organizations, student
life activities, orientation, intramurals, etc) Hours/week: 0,1-4,5-8,13-16,17-20,21-30, more than 30
Other interactions with students outside of the classroom Hours/week: 0,1-4,5-8,13-16,17-20,21-30, more than 30
Advising undergraduate students Hours/week: 0,1-4,5-8,13-16,17-20,21-30, more than 30
Working with undergraduates on research Hours/week: 0,1-4,5-8,13-16,17-20,21-30, more than 30
Supervising internships or other field experiences Hours/week: 0,1-4,5-8,13-16,17-20,21-30, more than 30
Active and Collaborative Learning (α=.78)
Working effectively with others Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Work with other students on projects during class Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Work with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Tutor or teach other students (paid or voluntary) Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Discuss ideas or readings from class with others outside of class (other students, faculty members,
coworkers, etc.) Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Ask questions in class or contribute to class discussions None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Teacher-student shared responsibility (seminar, discussion, etc.) % of class time: 0, 1-9,10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,75 or more
Student presentations % of class time: 0, 1-9,10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,75 or more
Small group activities % of class time: 0, 1-9,10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,75 or more
In-class writing % of class time: 0, 1-9,10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,75 or more
Academic Challenge (α=.72)
Writing clearly and effectively Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Work on a paper or project that requires integrating ideas or information from various sources Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Prepare two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Work harder than they usually do to meet your standards None, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75% or higher
Mark the box that represents the extent to which your evaluations of student performance (e.g.,
examinations, portfolio) challenge students in your selected course section to do their best work? 1 (very little), 2,3,4,5,6,7 (very much)
Number of written papers of more than 10 pages 0,1-4,5-8,9-12,13-16,17-20,21-30, More than 31
Number of assigned textbooks, books, and/or book length packs of course readings 0,1-4,5-8,9-12,13-16,17-20,21-30, More than 31
Number of homework assignments that take your students more than one hour to complete 0,1-4,5-8,9-12,13-16,17-20,21-30, More than 31
Number of written papers between 5 and 10 pages 0,1-4,5-8,9-12,13-16,17-20,21-30, More than 30
In a typical 7-day week, about how many hours do you think your students actually spend
preparing for your class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, and other activities related to your
course) 0, 1-2,3-4,5-6,7-8,9-10,11-12, More than 12
In a typical 7-day week, about how many hours do you expect your students to spend preparing for
your class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, and other activities related to your course) 0, 1-2,3-4,5-6,7-8,9-10,11-12, More than 12
 34

CONSTRUCTS AND VARIABLES QUESTION RESPONSE SETS

Higher-Order Cognitive Activities (α=.78)
Thinking critically and analytically Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex
interpretations and relationships Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Solving complex real-world problems Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Making judgments about the value of information, arguments or methods such as examining how
others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory, such as examining a particular case
or situation in depth, and considering its components Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class
discussions Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Importance of Enriching Activitiesa (α=.77)
Community service or volunteer work Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Participation in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students
take two or more classes together Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Study abroad Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Independent study Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Self-designed major Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Culminating senior experience Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Work on a research project with you outside of course program requirements Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
Foreign language coursework Very important, important, somewhat important, not important
STUDENT CONSTRUCTS
Student Engagement
Level of Academic Challenge (a=.74/.75)
Hours per week preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, and other activities
related to your academic program) 0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, More than 30
Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations Very often, often, sometimes, never
Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings during the current
school year None, 1-4, 5-10, 11-20, more than 20
Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more during the current school year None, 1-4, 5-10, 11-20, more than 20
Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages during the current school year None, 1-4, 5-10, 11-20, more than 20
Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages during the current school year None, 1-4, 5-10, 11-20, more than 20
Coursework emphasizes: Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Coursework emphasizes: Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new,
more complex interpretations and relationships Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Coursework emphasizes: Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or
methods Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Coursework emphasizes: Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Campus environments emphasize: Spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic
work Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Active and Collaborative Learning (a=.61/.62)
Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Very often, often, sometimes, never
Made a class presentation Very often, often, sometimes, never
Worked with other students on projects during class Very often, often, sometimes, never
Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Very often, often, sometimes, never
Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) Very often, often, sometimes, never
Participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course Very often, often, sometimes, never
Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family
members, coworkers, etc.) Very often, often, sometimes, never
 35

CONSTRUCTS AND VARIABLES QUESTION RESPONSE SETS

Student Faculty Interaction (α=.73-75)
Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Received prompt feedback from faculty on your academic performance (written or oral) Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Supportive Campus
Supportive Campus Environment (a=.76/.77)
Campus Environments Emphasize: Providing the support you need to help you succeed
academically Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Campus Environments Emphasize: Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
(work, family, etc.) Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Campus Environments Emphasize: Providing the support you need to thrive socially Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
1=Unfriendly, unsupportive, sense of alienation; 7=friendly,
Quality: Relationships with other students supportive, sense of belonging
1=Unavailable, unhelpful, unsympathetic; 7=Available, helpful,
Quality: Relationships with faculty members sympathetic
Quality: Relationships with administrative personnel and offices 1=Unhelpful, inconsiderate, rigid 7=Helpful, considerate, flexible
Interpersonal Support (a=.68/.70)
Campus Environments Emphasize: Providing the support you need to help you succeed
academically Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Campus Environments Emphasize: Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
(work, family, etc.) Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Campus Environments Emphasize: Providing the support you need to thrive socially Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Support for Learning (a=.76/.78)
1=Unfriendly, unsupportive, sense of alienation; 7=friendly,
Quality: Relationships with other students supportive, sense of belonging
1=Unavailable, unhelpful, unsympathetic; 7=Available, helpful,
Quality: Relationships with faculty members sympathetic
Quality: Relationships with administrative personnel and offices 1=Unhelpful, inconsiderate, rigid 7=Helpful, considerate, flexible
Satisfaction (a=.75/.78)
How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution? Excellent, good, fair, poor
If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending? Excellent, good, fair, poor
Gains in Learning and Intellectual Development
Gains in Personal and Social Development (a=.80/.81)
Contributed to: Developing a personal code of values and ethics Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Understanding yourself Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Improving the welfare of your community Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Learning effectively on your own Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Working effectively with others Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Gains in General Education (a=.79/.80)
Contributed to: Writing clearly and effectively Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Speaking clearly and effectively Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Thinking critically and analytically Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Acquiring broad general education Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Gains in Practical Competence (a= .76/.79)
Contributed to: Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Using computing and information technology Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Analyzing quantitative problems Very much, quite a bit, some, very little
Contributed to: Solving complex real-world problems Very much, quite a bit, some, very little