Academic achievement of college students as a function of involvement, gender, race, satisfaction, and participation status

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Academic achievement of college students as a function of involvement, gender, race, satisfaction, and participation status
Physical Description:
x, 128 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Jones, Carla E
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students -- Intellectual life -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Student activities -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Academic achievement -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Educational leadership thesis Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational leadership -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1992.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-114).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Carla E. Jones.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 027788739
oclc - 26529390
System ID:
AA00013519:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text













ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS AS A
FUNCTION OF INVOLVEMENT, GENDER, RACE,
SATISFACTION, AND PARTICIPATION STATUS










By

CARLA E. JONES











A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1992


UNIVERSITY OF FLRIDA lnBRARIE














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The work presented in this dissertation would not have

been possible without the guidance and encouragement of

several people. Giving thanks first to God, gratitude is

expressed to Dr. James Wattenbarger, Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen,

and Dr. James Pitts for their enduring support. Much

encouragement was received from supervisors and colleagues

including James Grimm, Dr. Alfred Matthews, Paul Riel, Dr.

Martha McGee, Cheryl Colvin, Karen Bray, and W. J. Mobley.

Technical support was provided by Marsha Shepherd, Dr. Joe

Ciechalski, Dr. Tom Chenier, and Tom Langenfeld. Typing

and editing assistance was provided by Leila Cantara.

Thanks are extended to a very loyal staff: Toni Ingram,

Camille Thompson, Blanche Anti, Janet Johnson, and the

staff of Resident Education.

Finally, gratitude is offered to two people who were

not with me when this journey began, but who have cheered

me on to completion. I wish to thank Roy and Jamie for all

their love and support.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paae

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... viii

ABSTRACT ..................... ....................... ix

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION .................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ........................ 5
Importance of the Study ......................... 7
Delimitations ................................... 9
Limitations ..................................... 10
Definition of Terms ......... ....................... 10
Research Methodology ............................... 12
Selection of the Research Sample............... 12
Instrumentation and Data Collection ............ 13
Treatment and Analysis of the Data.............. 14
Overview of the Study .............................. 15

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................ 16

Introduction.................................... 16
Student Involvement Theory ......................... 16
Student Involvement in the College
Environment ....... .. .................. ........ 20
Extracurricular Activities and Student
Development ......... .............. ....... ..... 23
Student Involvement and Development of
Minority Students............................. 30
Summary ......................................... 36

III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................ 37

Research Hypotheses ............................. 37
The Setting ............ ........................ 38
Description of the Subjects ..................... 39

iii









Description of the Instrument ................... 40
Procedures ............. .... ...................... 43
Analysis of the Data ............................ 44
Chapter Summary ................................. 45

IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY ............................ 46

Introduction .................................... 46
Part One: Description of the Sample ............ 46
Part Two: Student Involvement .................. 59
Test of Hypothesis One .......................... 70
Test of Hypothesis Two .......................... 79
Test of Hypothesis Three ........................ 90
Summary .......................................... 96


V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 97

Findings ....................................... 97
Conclusions ..................................... 99
Implications .................................... 101
Recommendations................................... 105
Areas for Further Study ......................... 108

REFERENCES ............................................. 111

APPENDIX

A QUESTIONNAIRE ................................... 115

B RESIDENCE AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR TOTAL
RESPONDENTS ..................................... 125

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................. 128

















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Pace

1 Characteristics of the Sample .................. 47

2 Race Information of Total Respondents ........... 49

3 GPA by Class Rank for Each Institution .......... 50

4 GPA by Class Rank for Total Respondents ......... 51

5 GPA by Sex for Each Institution ................ 51

6 GPA by Sex for Total Respondents ............... 52

7 Mean GPA by Race for Each Institution ........... 52

8 Mean GPA by Race for Total Respondents .......... 52

9 GPA by Sex and Race for Each Institution ........ 53

10 GPA by Sex and Race for Total Respondents ....... 53

11 GPA by Participation Status for Each
Institution ..................................... 54

12 GPA for Participation Status for Total
Respondents ..................................... 54

13 Academic Majors of Total Respondents ............ 55

14 Participation in College Sponsored Activities
for Total Respondents ........................... 56

15 Involvement Levels for Total Respondents ........ 57

16 Hours of Involvement in Activities .............. 58

17 Satisfaction Level of Total Respondents ......... 59

18 Involvement Scales for Jacksonville University .. 60








19 Involvement Scales for East Carolina University 61

20 Involvement Scales for University of Florida .... 62

21 Involvement Scores for Total Respondents ........ 63

22 Mean Involvement Scores by Sex by School ........ 64

23 Mean Involvement Scores by Sex for Total
Respondents ..................................... 64

24 Involvement Scores by Race for Each Institution 65

25 Involvement Scores by Race for Total
Respondents ..................................... 65

26 Involvement Scores by Participation Status for
Jacksonville University ......................... 66

27 Involvement Scores by Participation Status for
East Carolina University ........................ 66

28 Involvement Scores by Participation Status for
University of Florida ........................... 67

29 Involvement Scores by Participation for Total
Respondents ..................................... 67

30 Involvement Scores by Class Rank for Jacksonville
University ..................................... 68

31 Involvement Scores by Class Rank for East
Carolina University ............................. 68

32 Involvement Scores by Class Rank for University
of Florida ..................................... 69

33 Involvement Scores by Class Rank for Total
Respondents ..................................... 69

34 Regression Model for Jacksonville University
for Hypothesis 1 ................................ 71

35 Regression Model for East Carolina University
for Hypothesis 1 ................................ 74

36 Regression Model for University of Florida for
Hypothesis 1 .................................... 75

37 Regression Model for the Three Institutions
Combined for Hypothesis 1 ....................... 76








38 Regression Model for Jacksonville University
for Hypothesis 2 ................................ 80
39 Regression Model for East Carolina University
for Hypothesis 2 ................................ 82

40 Regression Model for University of Florida for
Hypothesis 2 .................................... 84

41 Regression Model for the Three Institutions
Combined for Hypothesis 2 ....................... 86

42 Regression Model for Jacksonville University
for Hypothesis 3 ................................ 91

43 Regression Model for East Carolina University
for Hypothesis 3 ................................ 92

44 Regression Model for University of Florida for
Hypothesis 3 ................................... 93

45 Regression Model for the Three Institutions
Combined for Hypothesis 3 ....................... 94














LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE Page

1 GPA plotted against class rank for Hypothesis 1 72

2 GPA plotted against class rank for total
respondents for Hypothesis 1 ................... 77

3 Involvement and class rank for Jacksonville
University for Hypothesis 2 ..................... 81

4 Involvement and class rank for East Carolina
University for Hypothesis 2 .................... 83

5 Involvement and class rank for the University
of Florida for Hypothesis 2 ..................... 85

6 Interaction of involvement and sex plotted
against race for total respondents for
Hypothesis 2 .................................... 87

7 Involvement and class rank for total respondents
for Hypothesis 2 ................................ 88














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS AS A FUNCTION
OF INVOLVEMENT, GENDER, RACE, SATISFACTION, AND
PARTICIPATION STATUS

By

Carla E. Jones

May 1992

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Leadership

Student involvement in the college environment is a

concept that has been explored in order to enhance the

quality of the college student experience. The student

involvement theory, postulated by Astin, defines areas of

involvement that are linked to college students'

satisfaction with their college experiences.

This study was an exploration of the differences in

academic achievement (as defined by grade point average) of

college students as a function of several variables:

involvement, sex, race, participation status, class rank,

and satisfaction. There were 428 potential participants

for this study who were asked to respond to a questionnaire

designed to determine involvement and gather information on

several variables. There were 238 (56%) questionnaires


M








returned and these were analyzed. Three null hypotheses

and three subsidiary hypotheses were tested at the .05

level of significance.

The grade point average for students on the variables

of gender and participation were found to be significant.

Female participants had a significantly higher grade point

average than female nonparticipants. On the other hand,

male nonparticipants showed higher grade point averages

than male participants. Female involvement scores were not

significantly higher than male scores. There was a

significant difference between the grade point averages by

race for students at one of the three institutions.

The analyses showed that gender and participation

status were important in the study of college student

involvement in the college environment. Although this

study supported the involvement theory, additional research

on the role of gender and participation in the academic

achievement and involvement of college students is needed.













CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Educational leaders have seen a shift in the

demographics of today's college students. The college

population has become more diverse as compared with student

populations over the past 10 years. Women, minorities, and

a wide variety of cultures are represented in higher

education, each in greater numbers than ever before. The

majority of college students are women (54%), and several

minority groups (Native Americans, African Americans,

Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and others) combine to

make up more than 19% of the enrolled college student

population (Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 1991).

Educational leaders have seen the demographic shift and

have become increasingly concerned about the needs of

college students who are growing and developing within

their changing institutions. The changes in the student

population have been accompanied by growing interest in the

quality of undergraduate education. The concept of

involvement has been related to quality and excellence in

colleges and universities and has been explored as a major

focus of higher learning (National Institute of Education,

1984). Leaders at colleges and universities have grown










more concerned about how this affects the college

curriculum. The report by the National Institute of

Education (1984) identified three means through which the

quality of undergraduate education can be improved:

increased student involvement, higher expectations, and

improved assessment and feedback.

In addition to student involvement, the growth and

development of college students present a challenge to

leaders in higher education. Chickering (1969) identified

seven developmental growth areas for college students:

competence, managing emotions, autonomy, identity,

interpersonal relationships, purpose, and integrity. These

developmental areas have been useful in identifying ways in

which institutions may articulate missions and goals in

order to facilitate student development and involvement.

Educational leaders need to be prepared to assist

students in developmental growth areas, as identified by

Chickering (1969) and others, through classroom

experiences, out-of-class experiences, and extracurricular

activities. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) reported that

during the college years students become less

authoritarian, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, and more

liberal socially, economically, and politically. Although

supporting these findings, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)

added that students shift toward openness and a tolerance

for diversity, stronger other-person orientation, and










concern for individual rights and human welfare. A

knowledge of how students grow and change may have an

impact on decisions made about the types of experiences,

services, programs, and activities that occur inside and

outside the classroom.

In order to provide quality outreach efforts to

students, administrators need to be able to translate

findings from research into practice. Often, outreach

efforts are not related to theory. Instead, focus is

placed on perceptions of educational leaders, on the past

experiences of student development practitioners, and on

institutional priorities. In turn, programs and activities

are designed based on these perceptions, experiences, and

priorities. Many of these programs would more greatly

impact the developmental needs of students if they were

refocused on student developmental theory.

When assessing student development, a knowledge of the

contribution of the campus environment to student

development can be useful to educational leaders. An

understanding of developmental researchers, such as

Chickering (1969), Feldman and Newcomb (1969), and

Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), is helpful in

understanding the process of student growth. Part of this

growth may be attributed to the impact of the campus

environment on student development. This leads to the need

to understand how students are involved in the campus










environment. Astin (1985) postulated a theory in which he

described involvement as follows:

SA highly involved student is one who devotes
considerable energy to studying, participates
actively in student organizations, and interacts
frequently with faculty members and other
students. Conversely, an uninvolved student
neglects studies, spends little time on campus,
abstains from extracurricular activities, and has
little time contact with faculty members or other '
students. (p. 134)

Astin (1984) suggested that different forms of involvement

may lead to different developmental outcomes. For example,

he suggested further study on whether particular forms of

involvement facilitate student development along dimensions

of development as theorized by Chickering and others. The

current study was designed to address Astin's suggestion to

explore the relationship between involvement in the campus

environment and student development and achievement.

Another example of the relationship between

involvement and developmental outcomes would be to examine

the relationship between involvement and student academic

achievement. Astin (1984) defined involvement as taking

many forms such as absorption in academic work,

participation in extracurricular activities, and

interactions with faculty and other institutional

personnel. He concluded.that the greater the student's

involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of

student learning and personal development. One educational

outcome and growth area for students that may be considered










is the level of academic achievement as it relates to

involvement.

Two important factors to be considered in

understanding the relationship between involvement and

academic achievement are race and gender. Results of

previous studies have shown that there may be a

relationship between involvement in extracurricular

activities and other variables such as gender, race, campus

employment, size of high school, and course of study

(Abrahamowicz, 1985; Shucker, 1987).

In the current study, the researcher explored the

relationships among race, gender, and academic achievement

of college students who were involved as participants in

the campus environment and those who were not involved as

participants. A difference between these variables may be

of importance to educational leaders who provide direction

to students and services for students. The results of this

study provide insight to practitioners who are responsible

for student development.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine the

differences in academic achievement, as measured by grade

point average (GPA), and involvement scores of college

students with regard to race, gender, participation status,

class rank, and satisfaction. Specific emphasis was given

to the question of which individual variables or group of










variables were significant predictors of academic

achievement and involvement.

The following hypotheses were developed for this

study:

Hypothesis 1. Grade point average (GPA) is not

related to a weighted linear combination of sex, race,

class rank, and sex-race interaction. Following a

determination of a significant overall effect, a subsidiary

hypothesis was developed:

Subsidiary Hypothesis 1. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, and sex-race interaction) when the effects

of other variables in the model are controlled.

Hypothesis 2. Involvement is not related to a

weighted linear combination of sex, race, class rank, and

sex-race interaction. Following a determination of a

significant overall effect, a subsidiary hypothesis was

developed:

Subsidiary Hypothesis 2. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, and sex-race interaction) when the effects

of other variables in the model are controlled.

Hypothesis 3. Grade point average (GPA) is not

related to a weighted linear combination of sex, race,

class rank, sex-race interaction, involvement,

satisfaction, and participation. Following a determination










of a significant overall effect, a subsidiary hypothesis

was developed:

Subsidiary Hypothesis 3. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, sex-race interaction, involvement,

satisfaction, and participation) when the effects of

the other variables are controlled.

Importance of the Study

Student involvement in the college environment through

extracurricular activities is an important area of study.

Astin (1985) found that students who were involved in the

college environment were more satisfied with the college

experience than those who were less involved. College and

university students have opportunities to grow and develop

while in college, and the present study contributes to the

knowledge about this growth and development by determining

the relationship between involvement and academic

achievement as related to gender, race, class rank,

satisfaction, and participation. Significant positive

findings were important to educational administrators and

student development practitioners by providing insight into

ways to enhance the educational experiences of students.

In addition, these findings will assist in the

administrative decision-making process about such areas as

programs, curricula, facilities, activities, and staffing.

Finally, since much of what a student learns is outside of










the classroom, students who are positive about their

college experiences will be attractive candidates for

potential employers who seek graduates who have had a

positive university experience and who can bring a seasoned

and mature outlook to the job setting based on their

college experiences.

Schuh (1990) reported on the progress of a study of

several institutions of higher education to determine

factors that enhance student involvement. Because much of

what a student learns is outside the classroom,

institutions need to determine ways to facilitate student

growth. He identified five factors and conditions that

promote student involvement: (a) have a clear mission and

philosophy that communicate to students an ethic of care;

(b) make the best use of.settings, making sure that the

environment is kept to scale (not overwhelming), well-kept,

and comfortable; (c) develop rituals, languages, and myths

to promote involvement through membership in the community;

(d) create policies that hold students responsible for

their behavior and learning and communicate these to

students; and (e) develop institutional agents who promote

student involvement and encourage membership in clubs and

organizations. The commonalities found among the

institutions in the study include a commitment to

smallness, a commitment to the stated university mission,

an allocation of resources at the front end directed toward










new students, and a precise preview of the institution

through orientation and mailings.

Kuh et al. (1991) published the final report of the

Schuh study and concluded that, when out-of-class

experiences complement the institution's educational

purposes, they contribute significantly to student learning

and personal development. Successful accomplishment of a

wide variety of personal development tasks is integral to

achievement, success, and satisfaction both during and

after college.

If it is determined that participation and involvement

in the college environment are positively related to

academic achievement, it would provide a basis upon which

to encourage students to participate in campus activities

and thereby increase the benefits of the college

experience.

Delimitations

The delimitations associated with this study are as

follows:

1. The instrument used in this study was based on

student involvement as measured by a questionnaire

designed by the researcher based on the work of Pace (1988)

and included types of involvement as defined by Astin

(1985). Academic achievement was evidenced by cumulative

grade point average (GPA).










2. The study sample was drawn from students enrolled

during the spring semester of 1990 at the University of

Florida (Gainesville, Florida), East Carolina University

(Greenville, North Carolina), and Jacksonville University

(Jacksonville, Florida). Only those students who had

matriculated for one semester or more were included in the

study.

3. Indicators of participation status included

student self-reports on campus activities, including number

of hours spent per week.

Limitations

This study has limitations that should be recognized.

They are as follows:

1. The participants in this study were randomly

selected from three institutions of higher education in the

southeastern United States: (a) a large, state-supported

research university; (b) a mid-sized state-supported

university; and (c) a small, independent university,

thereby limiting the ability to generalize the findings to

other college campuses.

2. The study included participants who were in the

18- to 22-year-old age group of college students which may

limit the ability to generalize the findings to other

segments of the college student population.










Definition of Terms

Involvement, as referred to by Astin (1984), is the

participation of students in the college environment

through some form of involvement such as experiences with

faculty, campus residence, and campus employment.

Involvement scores refer to the mean score for each

section in the College Activities section of the

questionnaire as related to student involvement.

Academic achievement is the academic performance of

college students as demonstrated by cumulative grade point

average (GPA).

Student development refers to the development of

students during the college years which is interpersonal,

social, and intellectual in nature.

Participation status refers to whether or not students

indicated that they participated in extracurricular

activities.

Participants are students who participate in

extracurricular activities and who may function as leaders

or participants. This was measured by the students

indication that they participated in any college

activities.

Nonparticipants are students who do not participate in

extracurricular activities and do not serve as leaders or

participants as described above. This was measured by the










students indication that they did not participate in

college activities.

Minority students, as used in this study, includes all

nonwhite students.

Satisfaction is the degree to which students are

satisfied with their involvement in the campus environment

and is evidenced by their response to whether they are

satisfied and to what extent.

Class rank is the academic classification of students

at their institutions.

Research Methodology

This section of the chapter is divided into three

parts: the selection of the research sample, the

instrumentation and data collection, and the data analysis.

A complete summary of research methodology appears in

Chapter III.

Selection of the Research Sample

The participants in this study were selected from the

enrolled student populations of the University of Florida,

East Carolina University, and Jacksonville University

during the Spring semester of 1990. These three

institutions were selected to include public and private

universities as well as institutions that vary in the size

of their student populations. More detailed information

about these universities appears in Chapter III.










The following steps were taken in the selection of the

sample: First, a listing of all students enrolled during

the Spring term of 1990 was obtained from each university

to generate a sample of students to complete the

questionnaire designed for this study. For the

randomization process, a table of random numbers was used.

Second, these students were contacted by mail and asked to

participate in the study. The total sample population was

428 potential participants.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

A questionnaire was developed to gather demographic

data, including age, gender, academic classification, and

ethnic background, and to provide information about the

cumulative GPAs of the participants. The questionnaire

also utilized a modified version of the College Activities

scales of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire

(CSEQ) developed by Pace (1988) and was designed to gather

student responses to questions with Likert-type responses

concerning the environment on their campuses and their

interaction with that environment through a variety of

experiences. The College Activities scales of the CSEQ

have been validated through the UCLA Graduate School of

Education and reliability information is included in

Chapter III. Nine of the College Activities scales were

modified for the study.










The instrument was pilot tested at East Carolina

University with a group of 11 students who were not a part

of the study. This administration of the questionnaire

assisted in the identification of strengths and weaknesses

of the questionnaire and was helpful in determining the

optimum administration time. The instrument was revised

and questions were modified. The layout of the

questionnaire was changed to make it shorter and easier to

read in order to facilitate its completion.

For this study, a questionnaire was mailed to each

participant and each one was asked to complete each

question on the instrument and return it to the researcher.

Respondents were provided with self-addressed, stamped

envelopes for the purpose of returning the questionnaires.

After initial collection, it was determined that a follow-

up mailing was required. Each nonrespondent was contacted

and asked to complete and return the instrument. A second

follow-up mailing was completed, and the responses were

added to the data.

Treatment and Analysis of the Data

Participants in the study were asked to complete each

part of the questionnaire. The data were coded for

analysis by the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) for

statistical treatment of the data.

The questionnaire items were scored, and descriptive

statistics were generated for data items. Mean scores were










generated for the involvement scales and grade point

averages. Multiple regression analyses were used to

determine the ability of the variables used in this study

to predict GPA and involvement scores. Additional

statistical analyses, including post-hoc procedures were

used to provide information on differences within and

between groups. The SAS program was used to perform all

statistical calculations.

Overview of the Study

In Chapter II, relevant research and literature on

student involvement theory, extracurricular activities, and

student participation are presented. Chapter III includes

a detailed description of the research methodology and

design used in this study. The results and analysis of the

data are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V concludes the

report with a discussion of the findings, implications,

conclusions, areas for future research, and

recommendations.













CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview

of the literature related to the problem statement of the

study. The review of the literature pertains to the

following areas: student involvement theory, student

involvement in the college environment, extracurricular

activities and student development, and student involvement

and minority students.

Student Involvement Theory

The National Institute of Education (1984) report on

the nation's colleges and universities indicated

involvement as one of the factors that could assist in the

improvement of the quality of undergraduate education.

Involvement was defined as the amount of time, energy, and

effort students devote to the learning process. According

to the report, the more time and effort students invest in

the learning process and the more intensely they engage in

their own education, the greater will be their own growth

and achievement, their persistence in college, and their

continued learning.







17

Astin (1984) developed a theory of student involvement

that seeks to identify those factors that affect a

student's persistence in an institution of higher learning.

He postulated that the highly involved student will gain

more from higher education and remain enrolled, and that

the uninvolved student will not participate in the

environment and will be more likely to drop out.

Astin (1985) defined student involvement as the amount

of physical and psychological energy that the student

devotes to the academic experience. A highly involved

student is one who, for example, devotes considerable

energy to studying, spends a lot of time on campus,

participates actively in student organizations, and

interacts frequently with faculty members and other

students. On the other hand, an uninvolved student may

neglect studies, spend little time on campus, abstain from

extracurricular activities, and have little contact with

faculty members or other students. Astin (1977) stated

that involvement occurs along a continuum. In an

explanation of the involvement theory, Astin (1985)

presented the following five basic postulates of the

theory:

1. Involvement refers to the investment of
physical and psychological energy in various
objects [interest areas]. The objects may be
highly generalized (the student experience) or
highly specific (preparing for a chemistry
examination).










2. Regardless of its object, involvement occurs
along a continuum. Different students manifest
different degrees of involvement in a given
object, and the same student manifests different
degrees on involvement in different objects at
different times.

3. Involvement has both quantitative and
qualitative features. The extent of a student's
involvement in, say, academic work can be
measured quantitatively (how many hours the
student spends studying) and qualitatively (does
the student review and comprehend reading
assignments, or does the student simply stare at
the textbook and daydream?).

4. The amount of student learning and personal
development associated with any educational
program is directly proportional to the quality
and quantity of student involvement in that
program.

5. The effectiveness of any educational policy
or practice is directly related to the capacity
of that policy or practice to increase student
involvement. (pp. 135-136)

Astin (1985) suggested that different forms of

involvement lead to different developmental outcomes, and

the relationship between particular forms of involvement

and specific outcomes is an important area to be addressed

through research. He recommended examining whether a

specific form of involvement, such as extracurricular

activities, facilitates student development. An example

would be to examine the relationship between involvement

and academic achievement (as demonstrated by grade point

average) as a developmental outcome.

Pace (1988) examined the quality of the educational

experience in developing the College Student Experience

Questionnaire (CSEQ). In focusing on the process rather









19

that the product, the quality of the educational experience

or process should be taken into account in evaluating

educational programs. All learning and development require

an investment of time and effort by the student. The

rationale behind the CSEQ is that quality of experience and

quality of effort are related in that high quality

experiences depend on high quality of effort. Pace called

the level of involvement "effort" in becoming involved.

Some educational processes require more effort than others

and this becomes a quality dimension. These processes also

require varying amounts of time. He found that a high

quality of experience depended on investing a high quality

of effort and suggested that measuring effort may provide

the key to determining the quality of the educational

process.

Measuring effort consists of examining how students

take advantage of the educational processes for learning

and development that exist in the college environment. The

measure of effort indicates the student's level of

involvement in the activity.

In summary, student involvement is as important to

college learning as classroom experiences. In fact,

involvement includes any activity that enhances the

student's feeling of belonging to the institution, whether

policies, facilities, or experiences with others on the

campus. When it is possible to determine how to increase







20

the student's involvement in the college environment, then

it is possible to facilitate student learning and

development (Astin, 1985).

Student Involvement in the College Environment

Boyer (1987) concluded that the effectiveness of the

undergraduate experience relates to the quality of campus

life. It is directly linked to the time that students

spend on campus and to the quality of their involvement in

activities. Students who get involved tend to remain

enrolled in school.

Miller and Jones (1981) reported that education occurs

in many forms. Out-of-class education is exemplified by

extracurricular groups, publications, teams, etc., guided

by student services and student development staffs. They

concluded that these experiences have some impact on

students emotionally, socially, morally, physically, and

mentally. Out-of-class education should not be viewed as

supplementary to the curriculum in carrying out the

educational mission of the institution but as an integral

part of its educational program.

Parker (1988) concluded that students involved in

extracurricular activities provide a challenge for

practitioners who wish to attract students to activities;

students can be attracted by emphasizing the job-related

aspects of extracurricular involvement or by offering

course credit for activities. The challenge for student









activity organizers is to recruit students and provide

adequate rewards for participation.

Shucker (1987) studied involvement of students in

extracurricular activities and the relationship of

involvement to retention and grade point averages for

freshmen. He found that those who participated in

extracurricular activities had higher persistence rates

into the sophomore year than those who did not participate.

However, it was found that those who had the higher

predicted and earned grade point averages participated less

than those who had lower predicted and earned grade point

averages. He concluded that involvement in extracurricular

activities was found to have a positive relationship to

persistence but a negative relationship to grade point

averages.

In a study of college student involvement and student

organization membership, Abrahamowicz (1985) studied the

perception, satisfaction, and involvement of members of

student organizations. He compared student organization

members with nonmembers using the CSEQ (Pace, 1988). He

found significant differences between members and

nonmembers where members reported more positive feelings

about college than did nonmembers.

Abrahamson (1985) studied the level of involvement in

extracurricular activities of women students as related to

various personal characteristics and background factors.









These included place of residence, membership in

sororities, high school experiences, parents' education,

college involvements, and parents' income. A significant

relationship between the level of involvement and hours

spent on extracurricular activities was reported. In

addition, a significant relationship was found between

hours spent in employment and involvement in

extracurricular activities. The findings were interpreted

to suggest that students who hold leadership positions and

are involved in extracurricular activities still may have

high academic involvement. The researcher showed that the

hours spent on schoolwork were negatively related to level

of involvement. It was also suggested that time given to

greater involvement in extracurricular activities may

detract from time given to academic involvement.

Jones (1985) studied the relationship among several

variables for freshmen students including student

involvement, satisfaction, and retention. She reported

that students participating in social activities, such as

residence hall activities, dances, spectator sports, and

outdoor activities, were more satisfied with their college

experience than students who indicated low involvement in

activities. Students with high satisfaction scores were

more likely to re-enroll during the spring term of their

first year. Further analysis revealed that involvement in

activities did lead to students' satisfaction.







23

Brunet-Koch (1987) studied the level of involvement in

campus activities and facilities where she compared no-need

based scholarship recipients and nonrecipients.

Significant differences were found between recipients and

nonrecipients in the quality of effort expended on

interaction with faculty, course work, arts, music and

theater, using the student union, clubs and organizations,

personal experiences, and residence hall activities. High

levels of involvement did not appear to have a negative

impact on grade point average. Low levels of involvement

were associated with the lowest grade point averages

reported. Recipients demonstrated a higher level of

involvement than nonrecipients.

One may conclude from these studies that involvement

in the college environment has some relationship to student

development, persistence, academic involvement,

satisfaction, and retention. The results of these studies

may also be interpreted as suggesting a relationship

between academic achievement (GPA) and involvement in the

college environment. While some authors agreed that

student involvement may have a negative relationship to

GPA, others found that the relationship was not negative.

Extracurricular Activities and
Student Development

Poll (1987) reported that student leaders achieved

higher grades, participated more in community organizations

after graduation, held satisfying jobs following









graduation, and looked back on their college experiences

positively. It was concluded that students attributed much

of the credit for their development in these areas to the

student government and student activities they participated

in during college. Poll used, as a basis for research, the

Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student

Services/Development (CAS) mission for student activities,

which is designed to complement the academic program of

studies and enhance the overall educational experience of

students through development of, exposure to, and

participation in social, cultural, intellectual,

recreational, and governance programs. The Student

Leadership Inventory was developed by Poll to assess the

development of leaders. The results indicated that 80% of

the leaders were juniors and seniors; contrary to the

belief that underclassmen tend to become less involved with

activities and more with academics as they move toward

graduation. Respondents agreed that they had become more

open-minded and more responsive to students' needs, had

developed a better respect for the administration, became

more confident in their ability to deal with problems

effectively, and were better able to give and accept

constructive criticism. Respondents listed several reasons

for their involvement in student activities: (a) perceived

opportunity for personal and professional growth, (b)

desire to be an active leader on the campus, and (c) the







25

opportunity to initiate change and more fully experience a

sense of achievement. Specific skills learned included

time management, effective communication, using the

telephone, taking risks, and delegation skills.

Wright (1987) examined the difference in developmental

task achievement, as measured by the Student Development

Task Inventory (SDTI), between students involved in and not

involved in student activities. She concluded that

students who are involved in student activities may not

have different levels of development from those of students

who do not participate in student activities. The

following groups were studied: (a) students who were

leaders, (b) students who were participants, (c) students

who did not participate in extracurricular activities, and

(d) first-time freshmen. The three subscales for the SDTI

are developing purpose, developing mature lifestyle plans,

and developing appropriate educational plans. She reported

that there was no significant difference between

participants and nonparticipants in the level of

developmental task achievement and no significant

differences between leaders and participants in the level

of developmental task achievement. Females scored

significantly higher than males on the subscales of

developing purpose and mature lifestyle plans. Freshmen

scored significantly lower than one or more of the three

other classes in developing purpose, appropriate









educational plans, and mature career plans. Wright

concluded that leadership, involvement, and gender may be

related to other aspects of student development.

In a study designed to investigate differences in

developmental task achievement between groups of students,

Williams and Winston (1985) used two classifications of

students to determine the relationship between (a)

participation in student activities and work and (b)

developmental task achievement and work. The two

classifications of students were (a) students who

participated in organized student activities and students

who did not participate and (b) students who worked for pay

while attending college and those who did not work. The

subtasks used in this study were emotional autonomy,

instrumental autonomy, interdependence, appropriate

educational plans, mature career plans, mature lifestyle

plans, intimate relationships with opposite sex, mature

relationships with peers, and tolerance. It was found that

students who participated in organized student activities

and organizations showed statistically significantly

greater developmental task achievement in the area of

interdependence, educational plans, career plans, and

lifestyle plans than did students who did not participate.

Working while attending college did not produce the benefit

of development of educational plans as did participation in







27

activities. Working was not found to affect development of

mature career plans.

Fitch (1987) examined the differences in interpersonal

values and demographics among college students involved in

community service as part of their extracurricular

experience, students involved in extracurricular activities

not of a service nature, and students not involved in

extracurricular activities. In addition, value differences

among only the involved students, according to the

intensity of involvement, were examined. More than other

students, those who were involved in community service

valued meeting societal obligations, thereby lessening

their own independence. Those involved in community

service and those not involved in activities showed

similarities in the display of egoistic values, but they

differed in how those values were displayed. Noninvolved

students and moderately involved students strove to

maintain independence through not becoming involved with

organizations. On the other hand, highly involved students

strove to maintain independence based on authority over

others. The moderately involved students displayed a

pattern of interdependence in interpersonal values, based

on service to others rather than focusing on self or

seeking power over others. He concluded that student

affairs workers may use these findings to structure

organizations and activities in ways that preserve the









independence of volunteers and stress that characteristic

when encouraging uninvolved students to become involved.

Abbott (1988) studied the relationship between

involvement and personal development or maturity. College

seniors were surveyed utilizing Astin's definitions of

involvement and a maturity scale. Abbott found that

involvement with faculty was related to two of the personal

development measures and that involvement with faculty was

related to the student's overall maturity score. A

positive relationship was found between academic

preparation and involvement but no significant relationship

was found between college GPA and the total maturity score.

Female gender was found to be significantly and positively

related to the level of maturity. Students with high

personal development scores also demonstrated greater

satisfaction with the college experience. Overall, total

involvement scores were significantly related to total

maturity. He concluded that higher levels of college

involvement may promote greater levels of personal maturity

and that these results can be used to provide direction in

promoting the personal development of students.

Hood (1984) studied three cognitive and three

psychosocial dimensions of development of college students

during their freshmen and senior years. For each of the

three measures of cognitive development (moral development,

ego development, and conceptual development) significant







29

increases were indicated in the seniors' scores over their

freshmen scores. For the interpersonal measures (freeing

interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, and

developing purpose), scores indicated that students

developed increased tolerance and acceptance of differences

among individuals, along with growth in confidence and

sexual identity. Hood also indicated that participation in

various types of extracurricular activities, such as those

provided by college unions, was related to growth in

certain psychosocial areas of development.

Involvement in extracurricular activities has been

related to academic integration of college students. In a

study of male and female students in the first two years of

college, Terenzini and Wright (1987) found that indicators

of academic and social integration were number of meetings

with faculty outside the classroom, hours per week spent in

extracurricular activities, measures of social and academic

integration in the Tinto model, and level of classroom and

social involvement. Differences were found in the amount

of reported growth for men and women. Women reported

significantly more academic skill development than men in

the sophomore year, and they also appeared to experience

higher levels of social integration than men during the

freshman year. Social integration for men was independent

of academic integration for the first and second years, and

social integration was independent of reported growth for









both the first and second years. For women, social

integration was modestly positively related to freshman

year growth and negatively related to sophomore year

academic integration.

Participation in extracurricular activities has been

related to self-esteem. Morgan (1981) found that self-

esteem was significantly related to the number of new

friends met at college and the number of social functions

and contacts subjects experienced during an average week.

No correlation was found between self-esteem and membership

in clubs and organizations or extracurricular athletic

activities.

Student Involvement and Development of
Minority Students

In an Executive Summary, the University of Maryland

(1986) reported on the satisfaction of university students.

The following areas were studied: compensation, social

life, working conditions, recognition, and quality of

education. The results indicated that students were most

satisfied with campus social life and rated lowest their

satisfaction with support and encouragement from faculty

and staff. For black students, high involvement with

faculty and staff was connected with greater satisfaction

with college life.

Branch-Simpson (1984), using Chickering's (1969)

research as a base, conducted biographical interviews of

black students in order to determine the developmental









tasks they experienced while in college. She found many

areas of overlap with Chickering's vectors but also noted

some differences such as the prominence of the religious

and spiritual aspect of the lives of these students, the

emphasis on interpersonal relationships, and the influence

of family and extended family. She noted implications of

these factors for student affairs professionals in

assisting in the development of these students.

McMahon and Chambers (1991) also suggested areas of

expansion of Chickering's (1969) vectors as they relate to

several areas, including minority students. The theory

includes racial identity in the identity vector, acceptance

of others in the interpersonal relationships vector,

acknowledgement of the influence of family in the autonomy

vector and in the purpose vector, and the importance of

spirituality in the integrity vector.

Deppe (1989) studied the racial and ethnic diversity

of two universities with regard to the likelihood that

students would develop greater social and humanitarian

values. He assessed a variety of structural and

involvement characteristics of the college environment

focusing on the relationship between racial diversity and

involvement on social concern values. It was reported

that, from the freshman to the senior year, social concern

values declined for white students and increased for black

students. Racial diversity did not contribute either







32

positively or negatively to student development. Students

who attended institutions with high racial diversity and

involvement had higher social concern values than students

at institutions with low racial diversity and involvement.

Involvement was found to be the most consistent factor in

students developing greater social concern values,

regardless of race, gender, and institutional type.

Students attending predominantly white four-year, public

institutions not only became less socially concerned over

four years, they were also less involved. The author

concluded that there is potential for students to become

more socially concerned. However, failure to create

environments that both support student involvement and

foster constructive interracial contact will result in

further decline in social concern and humanitarian values.

Teddlie and Larche (1979) studied the attitudes of

black students at a large, predominantly white, southern

institution and compared their participation in

extracurricular activities with that of white students. A

lower participation rate in extracurricular activities was

found for black students than for white students. Black

students participated significantly less than white

students in professional, career, or honorary groups; on-

campus football games; on-campus religious services; and

classes. Black students appeared to substitute off-campus

activities for on-campus activities; the author suggested









that this may have taken place at a nearby predominantly

black institution. Black students perceived discrimination

from faculty members significantly more than did white

students, and more often felt that less discrimination and

more acceptance would increase their participation in

extracurricular activities, as would more information about

extracurricular activities. Black students indicated that

an outreach program for recruitment would enhance black

participation and that organizations with activities of

interest to black students would help induce black student

participation. While white students preferred

predominantly white organizations, black students preferred

mixed groups. A significant number of black students

wanted on-campus activities to be further integrated, while

a significant number of other black students advocated the

formation of exclusively black organizations.

Other authors have cited that the richness of the

cultural backgrounds that minority students bring to

college is highly desirable in the campus environment.

Chew and Ogi (1987) admonished student affairs

professionals working with Asian and Asian American

students to avoid perpetuating misconceptions and refrain

from perceiving these students as a homogeneous group. The

Asian and Asian American student has high regard for

restraint of emotional expression, sense of obligation, and

humility; and they are devoted to family. When planning









programs and services for these students, consideration

should be given to factors such as the Asian American

student population size, interaction patterns among Asian

American students, places of congregation, and student

organizations. Student organizations are seen as places

where these students can achieve a sense of validation of

their identity and provide opportunities for interaction

with individuals who share similar values. An Asian

American student union, religious group, newsletters,

collaboration with academic departments, and the

development of role models are all areas where student

affairs professionals may support increased involvement in

the campus environment for the Asian American student.

Hispanic students, who have cultural roots in Europe,

Africa, and Asia, are a diverse group within the college

student population (Quevedo-Garcia, 1987). The traditional

culture is family-oriented, with strong community ties, and

this affects major life decisions. Furthermore, to be

effective in outreach programs for Hispanic students, it is

important for student affairs practitioners to understand

the student's home environment and to involve family and

community members in programs for these students. This

approach relies on a personalized recruitment process that

includes staff members who speak Spanish. Finally, the

author suggested longitudinal research into the various









factors that positively affect Hispanic academic

achievement.

For the Native American student, enrollment in college

is frequently the first long-term exposure to a non-Indian

environment, for many of these students attended high

school on reservations (LaCounte, 1987). College

adjustment programs for these students are essential,

including access to financial aid and services for Indian

students who commute to college. Variables that influence

the persistence of Native American students such as

financial resources, bilingualism, and career awareness are

appropriate areas of focus for college and university

student affairs personnel. An additional area of focus

should be on assisting these students in learning to trust

faculty members. According to the author, these students

may participate in student organizations such as the Indian

Club, where events are planned that demonstrate the

richness of the Native American culture. Students may

develop leadership skills by observing role models and

through participation in service projects on the campus and

in the community. To effectively meet the needs of these

students, student affairs professionals must recognize the

need for Native American students to preserve their

cultural identity.







36

Summary

An overview of student involvement, development, and

extracurricular activities has been presented in this

chapter. The theory of student involvement has been

developed to explore the quality of the college student

experience with the campus environment. Student

involvement is as important to college learning as

classroom experiences. Participation in extracurricular

activities had been explored in relation to grade point

average, satisfaction, employment, leadership development,

and student development, and varied results have been

reported. In spite of the varied results, most researchers

suggested a difference exists in the participation and

development of students based on specific variables.














CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY



The following aspects of the study are identified and

described in this chapter: research hypotheses, the

setting, description of the subjects, description of the

instrument, procedures, and analysis of the data.

Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses provided the focus for this

study:

Hypothesis 1. GPA is not related to weighted linear

combination of sex, race, class rank, and sex-race

interaction. Following a determination of a significant

overall effect, a subsidiary hypothesis was developed:

Subsidiary Hypothesis 1. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, and sex-race interaction) when the effects

of other variables in the model are controlled.

Hypothesis 2. Involvement is not related to a

weighted linear combination of sex, race, class rank, and

sex-race interaction. Following a determination of a

significant overall effect, a subsidiary hypothesis was

developed:










Subsidiary Hypothesis 2. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, and sex-race interaction) when the effects

of other variables in the model are controlled.

Hypothesis 3. GPA is not related to a weighted linear

combination of sex, race, class rank, sex-race interaction,

involvement, satisfaction, and participation. Following a

determination of a significant overall effect, a subsidiary

hypothesis was developed:

Subsidiary Hypothesis 3. There is no unique

contribution of each separate variable (sex, race,

class rank, sex-race interaction, involvement,

satisfaction and participation) when the effects of

the other variables are controlled.

The Setting

There were three institutions of higher education

selected for this study: University of Florida,

Jacksonville University, and East Carolina University.

The University of Florida, located in Gainesville,

Florida, is a large, comprehensive, public, research

institution with all major professional programs, including

law and medicine, located on one campus. The enrollment of

this institution is approximately 35,000. The students

represent every state in the United States and several

foreign countries. The University of Florida was selected








39

for this study because of the diversity of its student body

and its academic programs.

Jacksonville University is an independent, private,

liberal arts university located in Jacksonville, Florida.

With an enrollment of 2,400 students, Jacksonville

University offers bachelor's and master's degrees. This

institution was selected for its access to students from

the east coast and from urban settings, particularly from

the northeastern United States.

East Carolina University is a mid-sized university

with an enrollment of 16,500 students, located in

Greenville, North Carolina. This regional institution

offers bachelor's and master's degrees in addition to

offering the Doctor of Medicine degree and related doctoral

degrees through its medical school. This institution was

selected for its large numbers of students indigenous to

the region, particularly from rural counties in eastern

North Carolina.

Description of the Subiects

A simple random sample of students who were enrolled

during the Spring semester of 1990 was selected from

student rosters from each institution. The combined sample

population was 428 participants were selected for

participation through a table of random numbers. The

subjects represented the student population above the

freshman level and they had matriculated for at least one










semester. Seventy-five on-campus residents and 75 off-

campus students from each university were invited to

participate in the study. The subjects represented a

variety of academic departments including liberal arts and

sciences, preprofessional, engineering, and business. Of

the 428 questionnaires distributed, 238 (56%) usable

instruments were returned.

Description of the Instrument

The works of Astin (1984, 1985) provided background

information for the development of the first part of the

instrument used in this study. The theory of involvement

(Astin, 1985) provided the conceptual framework for most of

this section. The author discussed student involvement and

defined several components:

1. participation in extracurricular activities,

2. place of residence,

3. involvement with faculty,

4. participation of athletics, and

5. involvement in Greek organizations.

An instrument including these areas was developed to

provide information on the variables identified in this

study (see Appendix A). In part one, the first 13

questions on the instrument requested demographic

information from respondents including age, class rank,

place of residence, gender, ethnic origin, full-time or

part-time enrollment, employment, participation in










extracurricular activities, and major. Students were also

asked to mark a checklist of extracurricular activities and

evaluate their satisfaction with their involvement in the

college environment.

The second part of the instrument was derived from the

College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) developed

by Pace (1988). Questions were designed to solicit

information concerning college activities and quality of

effort expended on the campus. Pace proposed that by

measuring effort one could find the key to judging the

quality dimension in that some educational processes

require more effort than others and that the likelihood of

having high quality experiences depends on investing high

quality efforts. The students are largely responsible for

the educational benefits to be derived and that they get

out of college what they put into it. Whereas the

institution may be responsible for the program, resources,

facilities, and stimuli for learning and development,

students are responsible for the amount of effort invested

and the use of opportunities presented to them.

In each of Pace's areas of involvement, he arranged a

scale of activities ranging from those that were easy to

accomplish to those that required more student effort. As

students moved through each scale they were asked to give a

rating for each question; more points were given for more

involvement, thus allowing Pace to devise a scale










(category) score for each student's level of involvement.

The reliability and validity of the instrument has been

reported by Pace (1988, p. 26). The reliability estimate

for each of the 14 quality of effort scales used in this

study is listed below.

1. library experiences .79

2. experiences with faculty .82

3. student union .83

4. art, music, and theater .83

5. athletic and recreation facilities .89

6. clubs and organizations .90

7. personal experiences .82

8. student acquaintances .87

9. campus residence .89

The selection of the topic areas from the CSEQ that

were used in this study was made on the basis of previous

research utilizing the activity scales. Abrahamson (1985)

selected the following quality of effort scales: student

union; art, music, and theater; experiences with faculty;

personal experiences; student acquaintances; athletic and

recreation facilities; and extracurricular activities.

The instrument was pilot tested at East Carolina

University during the Spring of 1990 with 11 students who

were not a part of the study. The pilot test was designed

to gather information on (a) respondents' evaluation of the

instrument, (b) respondents' understanding of the intent of










the study, (c) any suggestions the respondents could offer,

and (d) the time involved to complete the instrument. A

100% return rate on the pilot test enabled the researcher

to make the necessary revisions and alterations in the

instrument. Feedback received from the pilot test subjects

enabled the researcher to design the layout of the

questionnaire in a manner to encourage completion. A cover

letter was developed to explain the purpose of the study

and encourage participation. Items were revised to require

less time to indicate responses. As a result of the pilot

test and extensive evaluation, validity was established for

the instrument. The questionnaire appears in Appendix A.

Although it may have been possible to generate similar

data by other means (for example, one-on-one interviews),

the primary consideration for the use of the instrument was

the feasibility of gathering information from students in

three distinct locations.

Procedures

With the cooperation of the student affairs employees

at each institution, initial contact was made with each

participant by mail during the summer of 1990, inviting

them to a session designed to administer the instrument.

Each of the 428 potential participants, representing three

institutions of higher education, received a cover letter

indicating the purpose of the study and asking for their

participation. The participants were asked to attend a










session on their campus where the questionnaire would take

about 20 minutes to complete. The turnout at the sessions

was minimal.

A follow-up request was sent to each potential

participant who did not attend the initial session. This

request included another cover letter requesting their

participation in the study. A copy of the questionnaire

was enclosed along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire by

providing brief responses to each question and to return

the instrument in the envelope provided. After these

questionnaires were returned, each nonrespondent was

contacted by telephone to encourage return of the

questionnaire. These instruments were added to the initial

responses and the group of questionnaires was analyzed.

Analysis of the Data

Responses obtained on each of the activity scales

yielded a mean score for each section. Responses to the

questions on the College Activities scales were used as a

measure of involvement in the college environment. In

order to determine the involvement score, the mean score

for each of the scales in the College Activities section of

the questionnaire was calculated for each respondent. The

mean scores of the scales were added for each student,

thereby determining a composite mean score for involvement.

The questions about the involvement in extracurricular








45

activities provided information on the participation status

for each student.

The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) computer program

was the primary tool used in analyzing the data. This

program provided the researcher with the opportunity to

perform a variety of data analyses relevant to the design

of the study. Procedures were used to determine means and

standard deviations as well as frequency distributions.

Plots were developed to compare GPA, involvement, gender,

race, and participation. Multiple regression analyses were

used to determine the ability of the variables used in this

study to predict GPA and involvement scores. All

questionnaires were coded to allow for identification of

the appropriate respondent. The results from all usable

instruments were transferred into an SAS program that was

designed according to the questionnaire layout to receive

coded information. Procedures were selected from the SAS

program that related to the research hypotheses of the

study. The alpha level was set at .05 as a basis for

rejecting the null hypotheses. This is a standard level of

significance for educational research.

Chapter Summary

The design and methodology incorporated in the study

has been outlined in this chapter. In Chapter IV a

detailed review and description of the data obtained in the

study are presented.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY



Introduction

In order to determine the differences between

involvement and academic achievement as related to race,

gender, and participation status, three null hypotheses and

three subsidiary hypotheses were developed. These were

stated in Chapter III. In this chapter the description of

the sample population, the tests for the null hypotheses,

and the chapter summary are presented.

Part One: Description of the Sample

There were 428 potential participants for this study

and 238 (56%) students responded. Sixty-two questionnaires

were completed and returned by students at Jacksonville

University. Forty (65%) of these respondents were females

and 22 (35%) were males. Of the total respondents, 56

(90%) were enrolled full-time, while 6 (10%) were enrolled

part-time. The distributions by sex and age of

Jacksonville University students included in the study are

presented in Table 1. Of the respondents, the greatest

number of students indicated that they were 21 years old.













Table 1

Characteristics of the Sample


Character- Jacksonville E. Carolina
istics University University
N (%) N (%)


Female

Male

Total

Enrollment

Full-time

Part-time

Total

Age

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Total


40 (65)

22 (35)

62 (100)



56 (90)

6 (10)

62 (100)



0 (0)

5 (8)

15 (24)

17 (28)

11 (18)

9 (15)

4 (7)

61 (100)


62 (63)

36 (37)

98 (100)



93 (96)

4 (4)

97 (100)



0 (0)

21 (22)

28 (29)

23 (24)

15 (15)

8 (8)

2 (2)

97 (100)


University
of Florida Totals
N (%) N (%)


49 (63)

29 (37)

78 (100)



75 (97)

2 (3)

77 (100)



2 (3)

21 (27)

23 (30)

14 (18)

6 (8)

6 (8)

5 (6)

77 (100)


151 (63)

87 (37)

238 (100)



224 (95)

12 (5)

236 (100)



2 (1)

47 (20)

66 (28)

54 (23)

32 (14)

23 (10)

11 (4)

235 (100)








48

For East Carolina University, 98 of the questionnaires

were completed and returned. Sixty-two (63%) of these were

females and 36 (37%) were males. There were 93 (96%)

respondents enrolled full-time and 4 (4%) enrolled part-

time. Of the respondents, the greatest number of students

indicated that they were 20 years old. The distributions

by sex and age of East Carolina University students are

presented in Table 1.

The students in the University of Florida sample

returned 78 questionnaires, 49 (63%) respondents were

females and 29 (37%) were males. There were 75 (97%)

enrolled full-time and 2 (3%) enrolled part-time. Of the

respondents, the greatest number of students indicated they

were 20 years old. The distributions of sex and age of

University of Florida students are presented in Table 1.

The respondents were asked to indicate their ethnic

backgrounds. Overall, there were 198 (83%) respondents who

were white, 19 (8%) who were black, 8 (3%) who were

Hispanic, 8 (3%) who were Asian, 1 (0%) Native American,

and 4 (2%) who indicated Other. Some of the responses in

the Other category included Bahamian, Arabic, and Pacific

Islander. Table 2 presents ethnic background information.










Table 2

Race Information of Total Respondents


Race Jacksonville East Carolina University Totals
University University of Florida
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

White 52 (84) 83 (85) 63 (81) 198 (83)

Black/African 2 (3) 11 (11) 6 (8) 19 (8)
American

Hispanic 3 (5) 1 (1) 4 (5) 8 (3)

Asian 3 (5) 1 (1) 4 (5) 8 (3)

Native Amer. 0 1 (1) 0 1 (1)

Other 2 (3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 4 (2)

Total 62 (100) 98 (100) 78 (100) 238 (100)




For place of residence, 137 respondents indicated that

they lived on campus in a residence hall, fraternity/

sorority house, or family/married housing. Off-campus

residence was indicated by 101 respondents. More students

attending Jacksonville University indicated off-campus

living than those from the other two institutions.

Information on place of residence is presented in Appendix

B.

The students in the study were asked to indicate their

academic classification. Due to the low frequencies in the

freshman cell, those second-year students still classified










as freshmen were collapsed into a freshman/sophomore

category. In addition, because of the low frequency of

graduate and Other respondents, this category was collapsed

into a Graduate/Other category. Tables 3 and 4 contain

information on grade point averages and class rank of the

respondents.



Table 3

GPA by Class Rank for Each Institution



Classification Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


Freshman/Soph. 5 3.30 .54 33 2.65 .57 20 3.03 .64

Junior 14 2.82 .62 38 2.83 .53 28 3.02 .51

Senior 39 3.00 .56 25 2.70 .49 28 2.97 .58

Graduate/Other 4 3.28 .75 2 3.00 2 2.96 .09

Total 62 98 78





For other variables in the study, information was

obtained from the data and is presented in Tables 5, 6, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Specifically addressed are

GPA by sex, race, class rank, and participation status.













Table 4

GPA by Class Rank for Total Respondents


Class Rank N M SD



Freshman/Soph. 55 2.84 0.62

Junior 79 2.90 0.53

Senior 91 2.90 0.55

Graduate/Other 7 3.14 0.55







Table 5

GPA by Sex for Each Institution



Sex Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


Female 40 3.09 0.55 59 2.72 0.54 48 2.92 0.55

Male 22 2.86 0.62 35 2.76 0.51 28 3.13 0.55

Total 62 93 76










Table 6

GPA by Sex for Total Respondents


Sex N M SD



Female 147 2.89 0.56

Male 85 2.91 0.57





Table 7

Mean GPA by Race for Each Institution



Race Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


White 52 3.06 .59 79 2.81 .52 61 3.03 .53

Minority 10 2.75 .50 15 2.37 .40 15 2.89 .68





Table 8

Mean GPA by Race for Total Respondents



Race N M SD


White 192 2.94 0.55

Minority 40 2.66 0.58











Table 9

GPA by Sex and Race for



Institution/
Race N


Jacksonville Univ.
White 36
Minority 4

East Carolina Univ.
White 50
Minority 9

Univ. of Florida
White 38
Minority 10


Each Institution



Females
M SD



3.11 0.57
2.80 0.21


2.78 0.55
2.37 0.34


2.94 0.51
2.86 0.71


Table 10

GPA by Sex and Race for Total


Sex/
Race


Female
White
Minority

Male
White
Minority


Respondents


M



2.93
2.66


2.98
2.65


Males
M



5 2.91
5 2.71


9 2.85
5 2.36


3 3.17
5 2.92


SD



0.62
0.65


0.47
0.51


0.52
0.69


SD



0.56
0.56


0.54
0.62


--


CPA hy SAY and Race for Total Res-ondents-"-










Table 11

GPA by Participation Status for Each Institution


Participation Jacksonville East Carolina University
Status University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


Participants 49 3.02 0.58 59 2.80 0.54 51 3.09 0.52

Nonparticipants 11 2.93 0.58 27 2.57 0.41 20 2.77 0.52





Table 12

GPA for Participation Status for Total Respondents



Participation N M SD
Status


Participants 159 2.96 0.56

Nonparticipants 58 2.71 0.50


Students were asked to indicate whether or not they

were employed and, if employed, to indicate the place of

employment and number of hours employed. The number of

hours worked are presented in Appendix C.

The students in the sample were asked about their

academic majors. The information concerning academic

majors is presented in Table 13. In the category of Other,










the majors reported included the following: law,

recreation, social work, home economics, and undecided.



Table 13

Academic Majors of Total Respondents



Majors Jacksonville East Carolina University Totals
University University of Florida
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)


Liberal Arts
and Sciences 9 (14)

Journalism/
Communication 8 (13)

Business 19 (31)

Architecture 0

Agriculture 0

Education 6 (9)

Engineering 2 (3)

Health Related
Professions 0


Nursing

Fine Arts

Social
Sciences

Other

Totals


3 (5)

7 (11)


6 (10)

2 (3)

62 (100)


9 (9) 23 (29) 41 (17)


5 (5)

19 (19)

0

0

14 (14)

3 (3)


12 (12)

4 (4)

7 (7)


4 (4)

21 (21)

98 (100)


10 (13) 23 (10)

6 (8) 44 (18)

3 (3) 3 (1)

5 (6) 5 (2)

4 (5) 24 (10)

10 (12) 15 (6)


(6) 17 (7)

(1) 3 (3)

(3) 16 (7)


1 (1) 11 (4)

8 (10) 31 (13)

78 (100) 238 (100)








56

Respondents were asked to check as many extracurricular

activities as applicable to their involvements. The

frequency of responses is presented in Table 14.

Table 14

Participation in College Sponsored Activities for Total
Respondents


Activities Jacksonville East Carolina University Totals
University University of Florida
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

College Council 1 (1) 3 (3) 1 (1) 5 (2)

Academic Club/Hon 9 (15) 15 (15) 8 (10) 32 (13)

Res Hall/Gov./Hon 2 (3) 6 (6) 6 (7) 14 (6)

Student Gov. 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 2 (1)

Interest Club 11 (18) 9 (9) 15 (19) 35 (15)

Service/Soc Club 11 (18) 10 (10) 13 (17) 34 (14)

Fraternity/Sor 19 (31) 12 (12) 18 (23) 49 (21)

Campus Employmt. 12 (19) 8 (8) 12 (15) 32 (13)

Intramural Team 12 (19) 23 (23) 12 (15) 47 (20)

Athletic Team 9 (15) 7 (7) 3 (4) 19 (8)

No Activities 11 (17) 28 (28) 21 (27) 60 (25)

Other 10 (16) 12 (12) 7 (9) 29 (12)




Students who indicated some involvement in activities

were asked to list their type of involvement in the

organization or club. The categories included major offices










including President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer,

and Director; other elected office; or member only. In

addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they

attended meetings and how often. The categories of

attendance were regularly, not regularly, and not at all.

This information is presented in Table 15.



Table 15

Involvement Levels for Total Respondents



Variable Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N (%) N (%) N (%)


Involvement Level

Major Officers 11 (27) 11 (20) 7 (14)

Other Officers 13 (32) 6 (11) 7 (14)

Member only 17 (41) 39 (69) 35 (72)

Attendance

Regularly 34 (54) 49 (50) 34 (44)

Not regularly 6 (10) 8 (8) 15 (19)

Not at all 4 (6) 3 (3) 0 (0)




The number of hours involved in activities per week


was compiled for the respondents.

presented in Table 16.


This information is










Table 16

Hours of Involvement in Activities


Variable Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


Sex

Female 28 13.44 9.32 34 13.71 15.21 28 8.30 7.31

Male 15 17.82 17.56 25 10.72 8.37 18 7.00 7.01

Classification

Freshmen/Soph 2 12.00 16.97 14 11.82 7.36 7 5.14 4.02

Junior 9 19.78 12.05 24 9.10 7.62 18 8.56 7.00

Senior 28 12.84 10.10 19 17.63 19.08 20 7.73 8.17

Grad/Other 4 20.50 26.91 2 7.50 3.54 1 14.00 -

Ethnicity

White 37 14.29 12.4 50 12.84 13.71 36 8.40 7.51

Minority 6 19.17 15.46 9 10.22 4.74 10 5.60 5.36


Respondents were asked to indicate their level of

satisfaction with the quality of their involvement in

activities on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 indicating very

satisfied, 2 indicating somewhat satisfied, and 3

indicating not satisfied. The data are presented in Table

17.










Table 17

Satisfaction Level of Total Respondents


Satisfaction Jacksonville East Carolina University
Level University University of Florida
N (%) N (%) N (%)


1. Very
Satisfied 27 (47) 43 (48) 33 (50)

2. Somewhat
Satisfied 26 (46) 33 (38) 20 (30)

3. Not
Satisfied 4 (7) 12 (14) 12 (20)




Part Two: Student Involvement

In the second section of the questionnaire,

respondents were asked to answer questions about their

involvements on the campus on a scale of 1-4, with 1

indicating Never, 2 indicating Seldom, 3 indicating

Frequently, and 4 indicating Most Often. Each category was

designated as a scale, and a weighted mean score was

determined for each scale. Each question in the scale was

weighted one more than the previous question in the scale.

The total involvement scores are sums of the mean scores

for each scale. The mean scores and total involvement

scores for each scale by university are presented in Tables

18, 19, 20, and 21. In addition, descriptive statistics

have been compiled about the sample and are presented in










Tables 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,

and 35.



Table 18

Involvement Scales for Jacksonville University



Scales N=62 M SD



Library Experiences 13.27 3.32

Experiences with Faculty 14.43 3.56

Student Union 10.54 3.14

Art, Music, Theater 12.60 4.88

Athletic and Recreation 11.48 5.28

Clubs and Organizations 12.98 5.26

Personal Experiences 13.33 3.65

Student Acquaintances 16.43 3.46

Campus Residence 6.07 6.95

Total Involvement Scores 111.15 23.80












Table 19

Involvement Scales for East Carolina University



Scales N=98 M SD



Library Experiences 12.06 3.02

Experiences with Faculty 11.80 2.92

Student Union 12.50 3.28

Art, Music, Theater 11.29 3.96

Athletic and Recreation 10.56 4.28

Clubs and Organizations 11.55 4.61

Personal Experiences 13.57 3.78

Student Acquaintances 16.33 3.68

Campus Residence 10.85 6.58

Total Involvement Scores 110.52 20.50












Table 20

Involvement Scales for University of Florida


Scales N=78 M SD



Library Experiences 10.36 3.63

Experiences with Faculty 9.76 2.66

Student Union 10.62 2.98

Art, Music, Theater 11.23 3.20

Athletic and Recreation 9.76 3.79

Clubs and Organizations 11.39 4.78

Personal Experiences 12.87 3.67

Student Acquaintances 15.11 4.20

Campus Residence 9.31 7.84

Total Involvement Scores 100.40 22.30













Table 21

Involvement Scores for Total Respondents


Scales N=238 M SD



Library Experiences 11.81 3.39

Experiences with Faculty 11.81 3.50

Student Union 11.37 3.27

Art, Music, Theater 11.61 4.02

Athletic and Recreation 10.53 4.44

Clubs and Organizations 11.87 4.87

Personal Experiences 13.27 3.70

Student Acquaintances 15.97 3.83

Campus Residence 9.10 .33

Total Involvement Scores 107.37 22.43













Table 22

Mean Involvement Scores by


Sex by School


University/Sex N M SD



Jacksonville University

Female 40 114.64 23.23

Male 22 104.79 24.03

East Carolina University

Female 62 110.83 20.83

Male 36 109.98 20.19

University of Florida

Female 49 100.23 20.28

Male 29 100.69 25.74







Table 23

Mean Involvement Scores by Sex for Total Respondents



Sex N M SD



Female 151 108.40 21.98

Male 87 105.57 23.21


MeanT Involvement.. .. ... .. ...... ...











Table 24

Involvement Scores b Race


Race Jacksonville East Carolina University
University University of Florida
N M SD N M SD N M SD


White 52 110.98 23.83 83 110.15 20.78 63 101.67 22.13

Minority 10 111.98 24.93 15 112.56 19.36 15 95.07 22.99






Table 25

Involvement Scores by Race for Total Respondents



Race N M SD



White 198 107.67 22.31

Minority 40 105.86 23.22


f E h I tit ti


Involvama nf go-es 1y Pace


or ac ns u on












Table 26

Involvement Scores by Participation Status for Jacksonville
University



Participation N M SD
Status


Participants 49 116.94 22.91

Nonparticipants 11 89.93 11.48





Table 27

Involvement Scores by Participation Status for East Carolina
University



Participation N M SD
Status


Participants 62 114.45 20.67

Nonparticipants 28 104.71 20.26












Table 28

Involvement Scores by Participation Status for the
University of Florida



Participation N M SD
Status


Participants 52 102.41 24.94

Nonparticipants 21 96.66 14.63







Table 29

Involvement Scores by Participation Status for Total
Respondents



Participation N M SD
Status


Participants 163 111.36 23.47

Nonparticipants 60 99.19 17.76












Table 30

Involvement Scores by Class


Rank for Jacksonv y


Class Rank N M SD



Freshman/Soph. 5 87.67 16.32

Junior 14 115.67 27.96

Senior 39 113.33 22.72

Graduate/Other 4 103.39 9.09





Table 31

Involvement Scores by Class Rank for East Carolina



Class Rank N M SD



Freshman/Soph. 33 110.21 22.06

Junior 38 114.51 21.17

Senior 25 104.96 17.34

Graduate/Other 2 109.22 .52












Table 32

Involvement Scores by Class


Rank for Universi a


Class Rank N M SD



Freshman/Soph. 20 97.67 25.97

Junior 28 98.63 19.51

Senior 28 105.50 22.25

Graduate/Other 2 81.33 12.29





Table 33

Involvement Scores by Class Rank for Total Respondents



Class Rank N M SD



Freshman/Soph. 58 103.94 24.01

Junior 80 109.16 23.00

Senior 92 108.67 21.40

Graduate/Other 8 99.33 13.67





An analysis of variance procedure was completed with

the mean involvement scores of the three schools as the

dependent variable. An F value of 5.83 (df = 2, 235)










produced a significant difference at the .05 level among

the mean involvement scores for the three schools. A

Scheffe test demonstrated that the mean involvement scores

of Jacksonville University and East Carolina University

were not significantly different from each other, but both

were different from the University of Florida.

Test of Hypothesis One

Ho 1: GPA is not related to a weighted linear

combination of sex, race, class rank,

and sex-race interaction.

This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression

for each institution and for the institutions combined.

The dependent variable was GPA. The classification

(independent) variables used for this hypothesis were sex,

race, and class rank. Race was divided into two levels:

white and minority. Class rank was divided into four

levels: freshman/sophomore, junior, senior, and

graduate/other. The model statement contained the

variables of sex, race, class rank, and an interaction

variable of sex and race combined.

For Jacksonville University, the analysis yielded an y

statistic that was nonsignificant at the .05 level. Sex,

race, class rank, and the sex-race interaction were not

significantly related to GPA. The inferential statistics

for this analysis are presented in Table 34. The GPA

variable was plotted against class rank, and the plot is










shown in Figure 1. Based on the analysis, the null

hypothesis was retained for this institution.


Table 34

Regression Model for
Hypothesis 1


onexsonville University f r


Dependent Variable = GPA
df Mean Square E E2


Source

Model 6 .05 1.60 0.149
Residual 55 .03
Corrected Total 61


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 0.39 1.21
Race 1 0.50 1.55
Class Rank 3 1.83/3 1.89
Sex-Race 1 0.07 0.20






For East Carolina University, the analysis yielded an F

statistic that was nonsignificant. Sex, race, class rank,

and the sex-race interaction were not significantly related

to GPA. The inferential statistics for this analysis are

presented in Table 35. Based on individual F ratios for

each variable, there were no significant differences for the















GPA

3.50


3.40


3.30


3.20


3.10


3.00


2.90


2.80


2.70


2.60


3 4
Class Rank


2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


1 Jacksonville University
East Carolina University
F-1 University of Florida


Figure 1. GPA plotted against class rank for Hypotheses 1.










sex and class rank variables. However, there was a

significant difference between the GPA for white students

(2.80) and that of minority students (2.37). The

difference between the mean GPAs for white and minority

students should be considered in light of the fact that

there was a difference in the number of white respondents

(79) and minorities (15). The GPA variable was plotted

against class rank and is shown in Figure 1. Based on the

analysis, the null hypothesis was retained for the

combination of sex, class rank, race, and the sex-race

interaction.

For the University of Florida, the analysis yielded an

F statistic that was nonsignificant. Sex, race, class

rank, and the sex-race interaction were not significantly

related to GPA. The inferential statistics for this

analysis are presented in Table 36. The plot created using

the variables of sex and GPA plotted against race yielded

no significant interaction effects. The GPA variable was

plotted against class rank and is shown in Figure 1. Based

on the analysis, the null hypothesis was retained for this

institution.











Table 35

Regression Model for East Carolina University for
Hypothesis 1



Dependent Variable = GPA
df Mean Square F R2


Source

Model 6 0.49 1.84 0.11
Residual 87 0.27
Corrected Total 93


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 0.01 0.06
Race 1 2.14 8.08*
Class Rank 3 0.47/3 0.58
Sex-Race 1 0.00 0.01



*p<.01



A multiple regression analysis was completed on the

combined data for the three institutions. The analysis

yielded an F statistic that was nonsignificant. Sex, race,

class rank, and the sex-race interaction were not

significantly related to GPA. The inferential statistics

for the analysis are presented in Table 37. The individual

F ratios were nonsignificant for the sex and class rank

variables. However, the F-test revealed a difference

between the mean GPA for white students (2.94) and those

for minority students (2.66). The difference should be










viewed in light of the difference in the number of white

respondents (192) and the number of minority respondents

(40). The GPA variable was plotted against class rank and

is shown in Figure 2. The means for the variables used in

the hypothesis were calculated and are shown in Table 37.

Based on the analysis, the null hypothesis was retained for

the combination of sex, class rank, race, and the sex-race

interaction.




Table 36

Regression Model for University of Florida for
Hypothesis 1



Dependent Variable = GPA
df Mean Square F R2


Source

Model 6 0.18 0.55 0.04
Residual 69 0.32
Corrected Total 75


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 0.24 0.76
Race 1 0.27 0.84
Class Rank 3 0.04 0.04
Sex-Race 1 0.05 0.16










Table 37

Repression Model for the Three Institutions Combined
for Hypothesis 1



Dependent Variable = GPA
df Mean Square F R2


Source

Model 6 0.57 1.81 0.04
Residual 225 0.31
Corrected Total 231


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 0.01 0.03
Race 1 2.78 8.80*
Class Rank 3 0.58/3 0.61
Sex-Race 1 0.04 0.13



*p<.01




Ho 1 Subsidiary: There is no unique contribution of each

separate variable (sex, race, class

rank, and sex-race interaction) when

the effects of other variables in the

model are controlled.

For Jacksonville University, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with GPA as the dependent variable.

There were no significant differences for the sex, race,

and class rank variables, or concerning the sex-race

interaction. The inferential statistics for the analysis




















GPA

3.18

3.15

3.12

3.09

3.06

3.03

3.00

2.97

2.94

2.91

2.88

2.85

2 3 4

Class Rank


2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


Figure 2. GPA plotted against class rank for total
respondents for Hypothesis 1.










are presented in Table 34. Based on the individual F-

ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was retained for

this institution.

For East Carolina University, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with GPA as the dependent variable.

There were no significant differences for sex or class

rank, as well as no statistical significance in the sex-

race interaction. There was a difference in GPA when

compared by race; GPA for white students was higher than

that of minority students. The inferential statistics for

the analysis are presented in Table 35. Based on the

individual F-ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was

retained for sex, class rank, and the sex-race interaction,

but was rejected for race.

For the University of Florida, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with GPA as the dependent variable.

There were no significant differences for the sex, race, or

class rank variables, and the sex-race interaction yielded

no statistical significance. The inferential statistics for

the analysis are presented in Table 36. Based on the

individual F-ratios, the null hypothesis was retained for

this institution.

In the data for the three institutions combined, there

were no significant differences for sex or class rank, as

well as no statistical significance in the sex-race

interaction. There was a difference in GPA when compared










by race. The GPA for white students was higher than that

of minority students. The inferential statistics for the

analysis are presented in Table 37. Based on the

individual F-ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was

retained for sex, class rank, and the sex-race interaction,

but was rejected for race.

Test of Hypothesis Two

Ho 2: Involvement is not related to a weighted linear

combination of sex, race, class rank, and sex-

race interaction.

This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression

analysis which was completed for each institution and for

the institutions combined. The dependent variable was the

involvement scores. The classification variables used for

this hypothesis were sex, race, and class rank. Race was

divided into two levels: white and minority students.

Class rank was divided into four levels: freshman/

sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate/other. The model

statement contained the variables of sex, race, class rank,

and an interaction variable of sex and race combined.

For Jacksonville University, the analysis yielded an F

statistic for the model that was nonsignificant at the .05

level. Sex, race, class rank, and the sex-race interaction

were not significantly related to involvement. The

inferential statistics for this analysis are presented in

Table 38. The involvement variable was plotted against








80

class rank and the plot is shown in Figure 3. Based on the

analysis, the null hypothesis was retained for this

institution.




Table 38

Regression Model for Jacksonville University
for Hvoothesis 2



Dependent Variable = Involvement
df Mean Square F R2


Source

Model 6 763.86 1.40 0.13
Residual 55 545.12
Corrected Total 61


Source df Mean Square F


Sex 1 0.81 0.00
Race 1 17.40 0.05
Class Rank 3 2177.32/3 1.33
Sex-Race 1 732.41 1.34


















Involvement



115.0

112.5

110.0

107.5

105.0

102.5

100.0

97.5

95.0

92.5

90.0

87.5


2 3 4

Class Rank


2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


Figure 3. Involvement and class rank for Jacksonville
University for Hypothesis 2.








82
For East Carolina University, the analysis yielded an

statistic for the model that was nonsignificant. Sex,

race, class rank, and the sex-race interaction were not

significantly related to involvement. The inferential

statistics for this analysis are presented in Table 39.

All individual F-ratios were nonsignificant. Involvement

was plotted against class rank and is shown in Figure 4.

Based on the analysis, the null hypothesis was retained.



Table 39

Regression Model for East Carolina University
for Hypothesis 2



Dependent Variable = Involvement
df Mean Square R2


Source

Model 6 262.67 0.61 0.03
Residual 91 430.47
Corrected Total 97


Source df Mean Square F


Sex 1 6.79 0.02
Race 1 133.66 0.31
Class Rank 3 1481.30/3 1.15
Sex-Race 1 73.18 0.17











Involvement


116.0 .
115.0 -
114.0 .
113.0 -
112.0 -
111.0 -
110.0 -
109.0
108.0 .
107.0 .
106.0
105.0


2 3 4 6
Class Rank

2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


Figure 4. Involvement and class rank for East Carolina
University for Hypothesis 2.


\NN


A


F77-771,177










For the University of Florida, the analysis yielded an

F statistic for the model that was nonsignificant. Sex,

race, class rank, and the sex-race interaction were not

significantly related to involvement. The inferential

statistics for this analysis are presented in Table 40. All

individual F-ratios were nonsignificant. Involvement was

plotted against class rank and is shown in Figure 5. Based

on the analysis, the null hypothesis was retained for this

institution.





Table 40

Regression Model for University of Florida
for Hypothesis 2



Dependent Variable = Involvement
df Mean Square F E2


Source

Model 6 497.81 1.00 0.08
Residual 71 497.32
Corrected Total 77


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 239.82 0.48
Race 1 123.18 0.25
Class Rank 3 1049.31/3 0.70
Sex-Race 1 824.54 1.66










Involvement


107.5 -
105.0
102.5
100.0
97.5 -
95.0
92.5
90.0
87.5
85.0
82.5
80.0


2 3 4 6
Class Rank

2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


Figure 5. Involvement and class rank for the University of
Florida for Hypothesis 2.


I


\ M
MEN
'RE
g x-
11MMIM

ON,,M'MOX,
MMMmi










A multiple regression analysis was completed on the

combined data for the three institutions. The analysis

yielded an E statistic for the R2 that was not significant.

Sex, race, class rank, and the sex-race interaction were not

significantly related to involvement. The inferential

statistics for the analysis are presented in Table 41. All

individual F-ratios were nonsignificant, but the plot

created using the variables of sex and involvement plotted

against race is presented in Figure 6 because this

interaction nearly achieved significance (p=.0575).

Involvement was plotted against class rank and is shown in

Figure 7.


Table 41

Regression Model for the Three Institutions Combined
for Hypothesis 2



Dependent Variable = Involvement
df Mean Square E R2


Source

Model 6 646.62 1.29 0.03
Residual 231 499.43
Corrected Total 237


Source df Mean Square E


Sex 1 164.79 0.33
Race 1 0.03 0.00
Class Rank 3 1283.90/3 0.86
Sex-Race 1 1820.68 3.65





















Involvement


Females


Males


x = Whites
o = Minorities


Figure 6. Interaction of involvement and sex plotted
against race for total respondents for Hypothesis 2.



















Involvement


2 3 4 6

Class Rank


2 = Freshmen/Sophomore
3 = Juniors
4 = Seniors
6 = Graduate/Other


Figure 7. Involvement and class rank for total respondents
for Hypothesis 2.








89

Ho 2 Subsidiary: There is no unique contribution of each

separate variable (sex, race, class

rank, and sex-race interaction) when

the effects of other variables in the

model are controlled.

For Jacksonville University, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with involvement as the dependent

variable. There were no significant differences for the

sex, race, or class rank variables, and the sex-race

interaction yielded no statistical significance. The

inferential statistics are presented in Table 38. Based on

the individual F-ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was

retained for this institution.

For East Carolina University, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with involvement as the dependent

variable. There were no significant differences for the

sex, race, class rank, or the sex-race interaction. The

inferential statistics for the analysis are presented in

Table 39. Based on the individual F-ratios, the null

subsidiary hypothesis was retained.

For the University of Florida, a multiple regression

analysis was completed with involvement as the dependent

variable. There were no significant differences for the

sex, race, or class rank variables, and the sex-race

interaction yielded no statistical significance. The

inferential statistics are presented in Table 40. Based on








90

the individual F-ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was

retained for this institution.

For the combined data, there were no significant

differences in GPA for sex, race, class rank, or sex-race

interaction. The inferential statistics for the analysis

are presented in Table 41. Based on the individual F-

ratios, the null subsidiary hypothesis was retained.

Test of Hypothesis Three

Ho 3: GPA is not related to a weighted linear

combination of involvement, sex, race, class

rank, sex-race interaction, satisfaction, and

participation.

This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression

for each institution and the institutions combined. The

dependent variable was GPA. The classification variables

used for this hypothesis were involvement, sex, race, class

rank, participation status, and satisfaction. Involvement

was represented by mean scores for each respondent. Race

was divided into two levels: white and minority students.

Class rank was divided into four levels: freshman/

sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate/other.

Participation status was divided into two levels:

nonparticipant and participant. Satisfaction was divided

into three levels: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, and

satisfied. The model statement contained the variables of

involvement, sex, race, class rank, an interaction variable




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EWPZ6TNYE_EAA09G INGEST_TIME 2013-03-05T20:18:43Z PACKAGE AA00013519_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES