Content uploaded by T. J. Jenney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by T. J. Jenney on Apr 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE IMPACT OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPECT TO
CHARACTER: FACULTY STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A PREDICTOR OF
PRO-SOCIAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
T.J. Jenney, Ph.D., Purdue University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article is based on research for my dissertation for my Ph.D. and I wish to acknowledge
and thank my dissertation committee for their support and guidance, including Deborah
Bennett, Ph.D., committee chair; Gerald Gruen, Ph.D.; Jim Greenan, Ph.D.; and Linda
Naimi, Ph.D. I also wish to acknowledge and thank Dr. A. Astin and his colleagues at the
Higher Education Research Association at U.C.L.A. who developed the Student Information
Form (SIF) as well as the College Students Beliefs and Values Survey (CSBV), and the
Templeton Foundation, which funded the development of the CSBV as well as the pilot
survey by the Higher Education Research Institute.
ABSTRACT
Character development has become a topic among college administrators and student
service professionals as well as parents and students. Although a laudable and much-needed
area of investigation, there is a lack of data measuring the impact and efficacy of factors that
might support pro-social character development in college students. The purpose of this study
was to discover what factors best predict and therefore promote pro-social character in college
students with the focus in this case on activities, goals, and values related to faculty-student
interactions. This study also examined how activities, goals, and values related to faculty-
student interactions predict other standard collegiate program measurements, including
satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with relevance of coursework, and overall
satisfaction with college. Secondarily, this study also examined the influence of gender,
institutional characteristics, residential status, and major field of study in predicting pro-social
character development. This research utilized a longitudinal study which examined the
relationship between character self-ratings by students on the CSBV2003 (College Students
Beliefs and Values Survey) and aforementioned variables in the CSBV2003, the SIF2000
(Student Information Form), and the CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research Program)
higher education institutional characteristics regarding type, control, and selectivity, using the
database maintained by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) of UCLA. The design
of the study employs Causal Analytic Modeling with Blocked Regression Analysis (CAMBRA)
on quantitative data derived from the SIF (2000) and CSBV (2003) surveys on a representative
sampling of college students comprising the cohort of entering first-year students in fall 2000 at
forty-six colleges and universities. This study utilized CAMBRA within the IEO model (Input-
Environment-Outcome) developed by Astin and colleagues at the HERI to utilize advantages
of CAMBRA and best allow for sequential modeling and causal analysis for studying what
factors best support certain outcomes. The goal was to better understand and highlight the
variables that predict pro-social character development in college students so that college
administrators and faculty, as well as parents and students, can promote pro-social character
development. The hypotheses included that predictors of pro-social character development
included activities, goals, and values related to faculty-student interactions. The student self-
ratings were divided into four major groups: achievement orientation- which included courage,
creativity, dependability, drive-to- achieve, leadership ability, and self-confidence (intelligence);
compassionate self- concept, which included altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness,
generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and patience; social, which included
cooperativeness, humility, loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, self-awareness, self-
confidence (social), self-understanding, and understanding of others; and other collegiate
outcomes, which included emotional health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness,
satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with faculty interactions, satisfaction with
opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection, satisfaction with relevance of coursework, and
satisfaction with overall college experience. Activities, goals and values related to faculty-student
interactions had a significant predictive relationship with all of the self-ratings. Secondary
factors examined including the influence of gender, institutional characteristics, residential
status, and major field of study, which had mixed results in predicting pro-social character
development. The results offer insights into the impact of faculty-student interactions on pro-
social character development in college students and may shed light on the importance of
related programs and activities for college students for shaping college student’s lives.
INTRODUCTION
Meno: “Can you tell me,” Socrates, “can virtue [arête] be taught? Or is it not teachable but the result of
practice, or is it neither of these, but men possess it in some other way?” (Meno, 70a)
“as it is in other inquiries, the attainment of theoretical knowledge;
we are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is,
but in order to become good,
else there would be no advantage in studying it—Aristotle
Building character has long been a theme among many colleges and universities. Many
institutions of higher education promote character development as one of the features that
make their educational institution stand out as one that not only educates the minds of
young people, but also develops character and civic responsibility. More than forty major
colleges and universities promote programs to cultivate character in some way or another.
Although the needs and benefits of character programs seem broad and diverse, little is
understood about the efficacy of such programs, and the factors that promote long-term
support of pro-social character development in adolescents and young adults. This study
cannot answer all of these questions. However, a better understanding is needed of the
psychosocial development of college students and what factors have predictive relationships
with pro-social character development in college students.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY: COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
Over the past several decades a number of leading researchers have shed new light on the
psychosocial development of college students that provides an important backdrop for this
research. Research by Winston and Miller (1987) has offered insights into how education
environments can influence the development of college students. Chickering (1981) has
asserted that the main goal of higher education should be to encourage intentional
psychosocial developmental changes in students. Important changes do occur as students
progress through their college education (Chickering, 1981; Brown, 1972; Winston & Miller,
1987). These changes touch not only the intellectual realm of development, but also include
affective and psychosocial dimensions of development.
Chickering’s widely accepted theory of psychosocial development of college students (1969,
1993) claims that college students are impacted along seven vectors of development and help
to establish their self-identity. Chickering uses vectors instead of stages because there is no
set time or sequence for students to develop in the various areas. Although there is the
notion of lower and higher vectors of development, there is no sequential mandate, nor is a
level of mastery at one level required prior to moving to another vector. Rather students
develop to some degree in each area at differing rates. According to Chickering, the term
“vector” better conveys “direction” and “magnitude” than other terms, without conveying
the need to follow a sequential time or the notion of mastering one area before moving to
the next (Chickering, 1993, p.xv). Chickering’s earlier seven vectors theory (1969) was later
revised by Chickering in 1993 to provide a more contemporary version of his earlier theory.
The following are the updated seven vectors of college student development: developing
competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence,
developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, clarifying purpose, and
developing integrity. Chickering also claimed that the first-year students year in college was
particularly formative because the first three vectors typically showed major development
during the first year in college.
Tinto’s (1993) influential work concerning student departure contends that for students to
successfully acclimate to college life, they must first make a significant transition in leaving
behind their relationships with family, previous friends, and community in order to
successfully interact with the new institutional setting. According to Tinto’s model, students
who are unable to let go of ties and values that are at deep odds with the institution, and
who are unable to successfully integrate into the institution are far more likely to withdraw.
In Tinto’s student interaction model both academic and social integration are essential for
students to successfully complete their academic tenure at residential colleges. Numerous
researchers have studied and confirmed the essential role of student involvement and
commitment to the new institution in integration and the critical role it plays in persistence,
competence, and feelings of belonging (Astin, 1977; Kuh, Schuh, & Whitt, 1991; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991).
Chickering (1975) provided a theoretical foundation for including the processes of
differentiation and integration, arguing student development requires both differentiation
and integration of college experiences. Differentiation is introducing and cultivating a variety
of academic disciplines, augmenting academic experiences with rich and diverse experiences
outside the classroom, and encouraging students to interact with other students different
from themselves. Integration is the process where students are able to see relationships
among diverse experiences and to draw on those various experiences in different contexts
and combinations to solve complex and varied problems.
In support for the need for differentiation, research has confirmed that a broad range of
college experiences influence student’s cognitive and social development. In reviews of
research Astin (1993), Feldman and Newcomb (1969), Kuh, Vesper, Connolly & Pace
(1997), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) all concluded that cognitive and social
development of college students is influenced by a variety of factors including academic
coursework, student effort, involvement in out-of-class experiences, and interaction with
faculty and peers.
Research on integration has supported the importance of integration in the cognitive
development of college students. For example, studies by and Pike (1995, 1999) provide
evidence for the importance of integration in cognitive development. Pike (1999) also found
that integration was strongly influenced by the effects of differentiation; and that integration
meditated many of the effects of differentiation on Davis and Murrell (1993) cognitive
development. Research by David and Murrell (1993) again supported the notion that
optimum growth occurs when studies in the classroom find expression in other aspects of
the student’s lives outside the classroom.
Social integration is the level of relatedness and “fitness” a student feels with the institution,
its broader culture, and any subcultures or groups of which the student is a part, and is
inversely related to a student’s feelings of isolation (Tinto, 1975, 1993; Kuh & Love, 2000).
Social integration affects student’s perception of acceptance and self-perception of being
part of the college community. Students who feel a strong sense of belonging and who have
a sense of social integration with peers as well as faculty are more likely to grow and develop
academically and personally (Kuh, Schuh, & White, 1991). Students who are more
integrated into the social system of university life also develop in psychosocial skills
(Hagedorn, Pascarella, Edicson, Braxton, Nora, & Terenzini, 1999).
Chickering and Reisser (1993) summarized much of this work in claiming there are seven
key influences on student development: 1) Clear and Consistent Objectives, 2) Institutional
Size, 3) Student-Faculty Relationships, 4) Curriculum, 5) Teaching, 6) Friendships and
Student Communities, 7) Student Development Programs and Services. These seven factors
all influence in some way the seven vectors of student development.
Although moral development is not the same as pro-social character development, it is an
integral component of character development. Pro-social character typically connotes a
broader set of social and life skills than moral development. However, moral development is
an essential component of character development. Therefore, it is important to understand
some of the important advances in the moral development. However, it is important to note
that theorists often differ over whether the focus of moral development should be moral
cognition, moral affect, or moral behavior; it would seem that there is much to be gained from
an approach that is able to embrace insights from each of these areas. Greek philosophers
such as Plato and Aristotle often emphasized teaching that engaged students intellectually,
emotionally, and socially, focusing on the three aspects from Greek educational thought: logos
or critical thinking, pathos or the emotional make-up including moral empathy, and ethos or
the connection between word and action, which might be thought of as modeling and
mentoring action of teachers and parents. A more comprehensive view has much to offer.
The college years are an important time for students to develop morally as an integral part
of their more broad psychosocial development. Experiences outside the classroom also
have a notable impact on the moral and social development of students. Substantial work
has been done on the moral development of adolescents and college students. Moral
reasoning, as defined by Rest, is the “process by which a person arrives at a judgment of
what is the moral thing to do in a moral dilemma” (1990, p.18).
Cognitive-developmental theorists such as Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1971) have
developed and expanded the notion of stages of moral reasoning and development. Some
theorists have criticized this view, claiming they are less than objective by putting forth the
notion that it is desirable for persons to move to a higher stage or moral reasoning
(Loevinger, 1976; Margolis, 1978). Kohlberg (1981) has responded to such criticism stating
that critics in part have an inadequate epistemology in the behaviorist child psychology field,
claiming such cognitive processes involve knowledge (Ibid., p.101); he further claims that the
concept of morality itself is a philosophical and ethical concept rather than a behavioral
concept, and that such developmental research needs to orient itself to philosophical
concepts of morality (Ibid., p.102).
Naturally, one does not need Kohlberg’s defense of higher level of moral reasoning to be
desirable. The roots of principled autonomous moral reasoning are as old as civilization
itself and are championed by the likes of the great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle, and by scores of later philosophers throughout European history, and well beyond
those boundaries as well. According to such advocates, at it’s very best, ethics should not
simply be a classroom discussion or an exercise in theory, but also an experience in moral
growth and development. As Aristotle has eloquently put it, the ultimate purpose of the
study of ethics is not “as it is in other inquiries, the attainment of theoretical knowledge; we
are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good,
else there would be no advantage in studying it” (Aristotle, 1953, 1103b, 26-29).
Studies have revealed that college education can help young adults advance to a higher level
of moral reasoning (Rest, 1988; Colby et al., 1983). However, studies have also found that
college programs in ethics can be relatively ineffective in facilitating students moving to a
higher level of moral reasoning and development (Rest, 1988). Often students can
memorize material on ethics theories without integrating that further into their life (Rest,
1984). Educational psychologist Howard Gardner has found that scholastic knowledge
often seems bound by the confines of school settings, and that when confronted by moral
dilemmas, students often revert back to earlier forms of moral reasoning (Gardner, 1991,
p.122).
Although college education can be an important variable in enhancing moral development,
according to Kohlberg and followers of his theories, only a small number of students
actually advance to Kohlberg’s post-conventional stages of principled reasoning. Instead,
most college students hold to a higher level of conventional reasoning with their college
experience tending to enforce this kind of status quo reasoning. According to Clinchy, most
students tend to learn to conform to societal standards rather than become independent
thinkers (1990).
According to studies on how college education and experience facilitates student’s moral
development, Rest (1988) concluded that the development is not attributable to classroom
education. Rather it is the result of 1) “dilemma discussion interventions” that engage
students in actual problem solving of controversial moral issues; and 2) personality
developmental interventions that engage students in service experiences that engage them
with needy people. Also important are methods to integrate those experiences through
discussions concerning personal meaning that relate their personal development to
developmental psychology. Rest (1984) claimed that gains made in moral reasoning tend to
be retained and are applied to new decision-making and problem-solving in new life
experiences.
Boyd (1976, 1980) designed an introductory course in psychology with the objective of
moving students from conventional moral reasoning to the higher stage of principled moral
reasoning by supplementing readings in moral philosophy with intense discussions of both
hypothetical and real-life dilemmas. His research indicated that by the end of the class
students had progressed almost one-third of a stage in their moral reasoning. Blatt and
Kohlberg (1975) found similar results in a similar study; although their courses did not move
students to principled stages of moral reasoning but to a higher level of Stage four reasoning.
Some researchers claim that it is not so much cognitive disequilibrium brought about by
moral dilemmas or an introduction to higher levels of reasoning, but rather social
disequilibrium in confronting the experiences and needs of others that is the most important
factor in facilitating moral development (Haan, 1985; Walker, 1986). Social disequilibrium,
according to Haan, is a “holistic, emotional and interactive experience wherein participants
expose themselves to others’ complaints and even to the possibility that they themselves may
be found morally wanting or even wrong” (Haan, 1985, p.997). Haan further argues that
more emphasis should be placed on “the emotional interactive experience of moral-social
conflict on moral development” (Haan, p.1005).
Dewey (1939) championed the role of actual experience in confronting moral issues,
including outside the classroom experiences. Kohlberg (1971) later supported this same
concept of engaging in the real world outside the classroom. Research of elementary and
secondary education has also supported the notion that the best programs for moral
education and development are those which emphasize the role of community-based
volunteer work or community experiences (Heller, 1989; Rozenweig, 1980; Honig, 1990).
Research by Nucci (1985) further supported the notion that moral issues are most effective
when focused on real life issues enhanced by actual social action. Research by Boss (1994)
further supported the claims of Kohlberg (1971) and Dewey (1939) as well as Gardner
(1991) regarding the fundamental importance of real life experience in confronting moral
dilemmas and stimulating moral development.
Boss’s research (1994) also supported the notion of Haan (1985) and Walker (1986) that
social disequilibrium rather than cognitive disequilibrium is more important for moral
development of college students. She also gives an alternate explanation that it is the
combination of social disequilibrium and cognitive disequilibrium through discussion of
moral dilemmas, especially those dilemmas that arise out of community service work, that
facilitate a move from conventional to post-conventional principled moral reasoning; which
would also be in keeping with the findings of Rest (1988) as well as Gilligan’s (1982)
suggestion that the fullest potential of development comes from a successful integration of
Kohlbergan justice or cognitive functions and the more feminine care or social affective
perspectives.
Ability to reason well is not the only component of moral development; moral sensitivity or
empathy as well as moral motivation and the ability to follow through are also components
of moral development (Rest, 1984), which are again enhanced by community service
learning. Hoffman (2000) also claims that empathy is the primary moral emotion and
foundational for moral development. Chickering and Reisser (1993) claim that empathy
develops as part of mature interpersonal relationships and that college students learn to
balance and mange emotions.
Since research into the moral development of college students has highlighted the positive
role of social disequilibrium as well as cognitive disequilibrium, it should not be surprising
that community service, particularly when coupled with a reflective component, has an
impact on the psychosocial development of college students. A growing amount of research
has shed light on the positive impact of volunteer community service and service learning on
psychosocial development of college students. Growing numbers of colleges and
universities have been actively encouraging students to participate in volunteer service
(Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Levine, 1994; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; O’Brien, 1993). A
service component has been increasingly a part of college courses (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994;
Levine, 1994). While most colleges do not require community service, there is a growing
number doing so or contemplating such a requirement (Markus, Howard, & King, 1993).
The Campus Compact, a consortium of colleges and universities now numbering over 500,
is dedicated to promoting community service among students and faculty.
Contemplation over a community service requirement has caused a crescendoing debate
over the aims and efficacy of such a requirement. However, empirical evidence has been
mounting over the benefits of community service (Astin, 1993, 1999; Astin & Astin, 1996;
Hesser, 1995;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Batchelder & Root, 1994; Giles & Eyler, 1994;
Eyler, Giles & Braxton, 1997; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; Rhoads,
1997 ). Research conducted by Astin & Sax (1998) suggests that community service
positively affects student’s short-term cognitive and affective development. Among other
things community service positively affects student’s commitments to their communities,
helping others in difficulty, promoting racial understanding, and to influence social values.
In their 1999 longitudinal study, Astin, Sax, & Avalos (1999) also found that a number of
these outcomes had long-term effects lasting five years after graduation. Even though the
effects were mitigated over time, there were long-term lasting effects on student’s affective,
cognitive and behavioral outcomes. This study was further enhanced by Astin’s (2000)
research on the effects of service learning in college education. Service learning is
community service with an added element of academic reflection and discussion that
positively enhances the impact of the experience on student’s lives. One might add that the
latter is also enhanced by the feelings of self-efficacy and self-confidence that accomplishing
tasks can bring about such as the results of community service.
Identifying oneself as a moral agent is again an important component of motivating one to
engage in moral action (Rest, 1984; Blasi, 1983). Engagement in community service helps
students identify themselves as moral agents (Boss, 1994).
According to Rest (1984) it is also important for students to meet role models who are
successful in their fields and who are concerned about moral issues and are furthermore
“active moral agents in a wider social world” (Rest, 1984, p.26). The broader experience of
community service particularly with mentoring individuals is a valuable resource and
relationships for such an experience (Cf. Boss, 1994). It is also important for moral
development, according to Rest, for students to meet role models who are happy and
successful in their fields, and who are concerned about moral issues and are "active moral
agents in a wider social world" (Rest, 1984, p. 26). Faculty and staff in a university setting
are among the individuals ideally positions for such mentoring positions though other
influential individuals may play key roles as well.
The bottom line in much of the study is that classroom learning alone will not provide the
stimulus needed for development in psychosocial dimensions such as moral development
and civic-mindedness. Community service is one valuable avenue of learning that provides
the kind of engagement students need for optimum psychosocial development in areas such
as morality, social responsibility, character and values.
Once again, Chickering and Reisser (1993) underscored seven key influences on student
development: 1) Clear and Consistent Objectives, 2) Institutional Size, 3) Student-Faculty
Relationships, 4) Curriculum, 5) Teaching, 6) Friendships and Student Communities, 7)
Student Development Programs and Services. These seven factors all influence in some way
the seven vectors of student development.
Broadly speaking, involvement is positively related to cognitive and psychosocial
development (Astin, 1977, 1993; Kuh, Vesper, Connolly, & Pace, 1997; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). Involvement can take a number of different forms, including involvement
with faculty, peer groups, or student organizations.
Faculty interaction is an important avenue of a sense of belongingness as well as academic
and psychosocial development (Terenzini & Wright, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978).
Other research has supported the notion that positive faculty-student interaction has a
positive correlation with students developing in broad and diverse manners including
competence, autonomy, interdependence, identity, purpose, values, maturity and integrity
(Erwin & Love, 1989; Chickering, 1969, 1993; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Org & Brasskamp,
1988; Stakenas, 1972). Such faculty interaction is most significant and meaningful outside
the classroom instruction format.
In sum, research in diverse fields of student development has done much to illuminate the
theme of the holistic development of college students, but more research is needed to come
to a more comprehensive understanding of college student development and to design
programs and educational environments that facilitate the holistic development of college
students.
The overall goal of this research was to discover what factors most predict and therefore
promote pro-social character in college students with the focus of this study on faculty-
student interactions.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This longitudinal study used character self-ratings by students on the CSBV2003 (College
Students Beliefs and Values Survey) against aforementioned variables along with the
SIF2000 (Student Information Form) and the CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research
Program) higher education institutional characteristics regarding type (2 year colleges, 4 year
colleges, universities), control (public/private), and selectivity using the database maintained
by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) of UCLA. The design of the study
employs Causal Analytic Modeling with Blocked Regression Analysis (CAMBRA) on
quantitative data derived from the CSBV(2003) and SIF(2000) surveys on a representative
sampling of college students comprising the cohort of entering first-year students in fall
2000 at forty-six colleges and universities. The data from the two surveys are linked by
student and institutional CIRP anonymous identifiers. This study utilized CAMBRA within
the IEO model (Input-Environment-Outcome) developed by Astin and colleagues at the
HERI to utilize advantages of CAMBRA and best facilitate sequential modeling and causal
analysis for studying what factors best predict certain outcomes.
Research Hypothesis
The purpose of this study is to discover what activities and related goals and values best
predict pro-social character development in college students including activities goals and
values related to faculty-student interactions. This study also examined how faculty-student
interactions correlate with standard collegiate program measurements, including emotional
health, physical health, satisfaction with campus community, satisfaction with relevance of
coursework, and overall satisfaction with college. Secondarily, this study also examined the
influence of gender, institutional characteristics, residential status, and major field of study in
predicting pro-social character development. The hypotheses included that predictors of
pro-social character development include activities, goals and values related to faculty-
student interactions.
Survey Instruments
With the goal of finding the best survey instrument and databank available for the purposes
of this study, an extensive examination of existing survey instruments was conducted with
the following criteria: 1) offer questions on values, character, beliefs, and behavior to college
students, 2) provide crucial demographic information on college students surveyed, 3)
provide information on type of college (private, public, small, large, religious, non-religious,
etc), 4) have a history of surveying this diverse spectrum of college students, 5) offer the
databank for scholarly research, 6) survey instrument and resultant data would be valid and
reliable by scholarly standards.
Although there are a number of possible survey instruments available, most were either
focused narrowly on ethical criteria or more broadly on college life or emotional criteria
without the pro-social character qualities that are the focus of this research. Additionally, the
research focuses on an extant database with a large representative sampling of college
students and longitudinal data. With these criteria in mind, the clear choice was the College
Students Beliefs and Values Survey (CSBV) in conjunction with the Student Information
Form (SIF). The College Student Belief and Values Survey (CSBV) is a survey developed by
Astin and colleagues at the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) of UCLA to
measure student’s beliefs and values over a wide spectrum of beliefs and values. The
Student Information Form (SIF), also known as the CIRP freshmen or first-year student
survey, is a survey administered to most incoming first-year students at colleges and
universities across the country, which collects useful student information including
background, goals, values, and behavior along with demographic information as part of the
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). The Higher Education Research
Institute administers the SIF for more than 300 colleges and universities across the country,
along with other surveys, and maintains a large databank for the purpose of longitudinal
studies of college students, including national trends in education. The HERI of UCLA has
been surveying college students and maintaining the databank for more than 50 years as part
of the Cooperative Institute Research Program (CIRP). The HERI also maintains CIRP
institutional data on each of the higher education institutions including extensive
information on institutional type, size, and selectivity.
The CSBV in conjunction with the CIRP Student Information Form (SIF) (also known as
the CIRP Freshmen or First-year students Survey) provides an excellent avenue for this
research into the psychosocial development of college students in relation to values and
character. Of particular interest to this research are the questions that relate to values and
character, such as compassion, kindness, helpfulness, generosity, forgiveness, and empathy,
as well as extensive information on involvement in peer groups, relationship to faculty/staff,
college majors, spiritual attitudes and behavior, and other very insightful data. The CSBV
contains many behavioral questions that relate to everyday student life.
The measures chosen for character consist of the response variables below, which were
treated as outcome variables, and are part of the self-ratings for the CSBV2003. Students
were asked to rate themselves in each of the following areas as: 1=Lowest 10%, 2=Below
Average, 3=Average, 4=Above average, 5=Highest 10%. The self rated areas of character
consist of: altruism, compassion, cooperativeness, courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-
achieve, emotional health, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness,
humility, kindness, leadership ability, loyalty, open-mindedness, patience, physical health,
religiousness/religiosity, respectfulness, self-awareness, self-confidence (intellectual), self-
confidence (social), self-understanding, spirituality, understanding of others. The survey also
offers self-ratings in emotional health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction
with sense of community, satisfaction with opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection,
satisfaction with faculty interactions, satisfaction with relevance of coursework, and
satisfaction with overall college experience.
Participants and Sampling
This study uses the results of the 2000 SIF(Student Information Form)/2003 CSBV(College
Student Beliefs and Values) surveys administered by the Higher Education Research
Institute (HERI) of UCLA, along with the institutional characteristics of the colleges and
universities regarding type, size, and selectivity also maintained by the HERI.
The HERI undertook the goal of surveying a representative cross section of students across
the country for current college student beliefs and values with the 2003 CSBV. With the
goal of developing a representative institutional sample that reflected the diverse national
student population with roughly equal numbers of colleges in respect to type (2-yr, 4-yr,
university) control (public, private), selectivity, and geography, representatives of
approximately 150 colleges and universities were invited to participate in the study. Forty-six
higher education institutes representing a diverse cross-section of colleges and universities
were ultimately selected.
With the goal to randomly sample an average of 250 third-year students for each of the
forty-six higher education institutions representing a diverse spectrum of colleges and
universities; participating institutions facilitated a direct mail survey by providing updated
mail addresses for students who met the following criteria: 1) had completed the CIRP
survey at their institute as entering first-year students in Fall 2000; 2) were still enrolled in
spring of 2003; and 3) had given the HERI permission when they completed the 2000 CIRP
to contact them again for research purposes (Astin, “Methodology,” 2003). In order to
determine the number of student names that would be needed to be sent to each institution
in order to yield 250 enrolled third year students who would actually receive the survey at
their correct address, each institution’s six-year retention rate was used employing a formula
devised by Astin and Oseguera (2005). Thirty-two of the higher education institutes also
provided e-mail addresses of the students.
In late March 2003, a total of 12,030 students were sent postcards introducing the study and
notifying the students that they would receive a survey within the next two weeks. In early
April students were sent the four-page questionnaire along with a letter explaining the
purpose of the study, which had information on the reverse side regarding the student’s
rights as participants in the study. Additionally, to explore the effects of monetary incentives
on response rate, institutions were categorized by type (public university, private university,
public college, private nonsectarian college, Catholic college, other religious college) and
selectivity (low, medium, high, very high); then within each type/category individuals within
each institutions were assigned one of three monetary incentive groups ($0, $2, $5) and to
the greatest extent possible at least one institution of each type/category was assigned each
of the incentive levels. Overall, students at 13 institutions received a $5 incentive; those at
17 institutions received a $2 incentive; and the remaining participants at 18 institutions
received no incentive. All incentives were included inside the envelope containing the first
survey packet (Astin, 2003).
Of the 11,547 students in the sample pool whose survey envelopes were not returned as
undeliverable, 3,680 students responded, yielding an overall response rate of 32 percent
(ultimately one institution was dropped due to an inexplicably low response rate) yielding
N=3672. However, not all students completed all of the questions and therefore the values
for the total number of respondents vary slightly depending on the set of variables chosen.
Women were about 50 percent more likely to respond than men. Monetary incentives did
impact response rate: a $2 incentive increased the response rate by approximately one half,
and a $5 incentive increased response rate by more than two-thirds (Astin, 2003). The
present statistical analysis did not employ a weighting metrics for responses.
Design
The design of this study uses quantitative analysis employing Causal Analytic Modeling
based on Blocked Regression Analysis (CAMBRA) within an IEO model (Input-
Environment-Outcome) on quantitative data derived from the CSBV(2003) and SIF(2000)
surveys on a representative sampling of college students comprising the cohort of entering
first-year students in fall of 2000 at forty-six colleges and universities across the United
States.
This study utilized CAMBRA within the IEO model developed by Astin and colleagues at
the HERI to optimize the advantages of CAMBRA. The IEO model, standing for Input-
Environment-Outcome, best allows for sequential modeling and a causal framework for
studying what environmental factors can work to develop certain outcomes, in this case pro-
social values and character. Astin explains the considerable advantages of the IEO model:
“In applying the IEO model to research on student development, “outcome” refers to the
characteristics of the student that the educational program under study either does influence
or attempts to influence as measured after exposure to the educational program, “input”
refers to the characteristics of the student at the time of initial entry to the program, and
“environment” refers to the various “things” -- educational institutions, programs, practices,
and policies -- that are designed to promote the desired student outcomes” (Astin & Dey,
1996, p.5). The importance of t he IEO model, according to Astin and Dey, is that it allows
researchers to effects of the environment on outcomes. According to Astin and Dey, “The
ultimate purpose of applying the IEO model is thus to learn better how to structure
educational environments so as to maximize student development.” (Astin & Dey, 1996,
p.5).
A further advantage of the IEO model used in conjunction with CAMBRA is the ability to
treat some variables as “bridge variables.” According to Astin, “bridge variables” are
variables that have the characteristics of both “input variables” and “environmental
variables” in that they occur after input variables but can have a substantial impact on other
environmental variables. “The student’s initial (freshman) choice of a major field of study,”
according to Astin, “is a good example of a bridge variable. While this is clearly an input
variable in that it represents an expression of the student’s personal preferences before any
exposure to the program, it is also an environmental variable in the sense that choosing a
major can affect the particular courses, professors, and peers to which the student is exposed
after entering college (p.20, cf. Astin, 1991, 1993).
The IEO model used in conjunction with CAMBRA also allows for “intermediate
outcomes.” Astin explains that the IEO model normally requires longitudinal data, where
three data sets are separated in time: “student inputs are assessed prior to exposure to the
environment, and the characteristics of the environment are assessed prior to the assessment
of outcomes (p.5). However he goes on to explain, “As we have applied the IEO model in a
variety of research problems, we have come to develop what might be termed a fourth
component -- “intermediate outcomes” -- which in temporal sequence fall between
environments and the outcome measure of primary interest (p.5) CAMBRA is also capable
of examining “intermediate outcomes” as another step between environmental variables and
outcome variables. In studies involving higher education research these variables typically
involve student beliefs, values, or involvement. Astin and Dey explain: “One advantage of
the CAMBRA approach is that it highlights such ambiguities by showing how the
coefficients for all variables change as each individual variable is controlled. It is, in other
words, a dynamic model that explores the entire data set in a step-by-step fashion, rather
than merely producing a single final solution” (Astin & Dey, 1996, p.25).
In order to make the most of the considerable advantages of the CAMBRA analysis, Astin
and colleagues who developed the procedure recommend that studies using the IEO model
consider at least seven blocks of independent variables, in the following order, which
corresponds to temporal sequence of the college student’s lives: 1) input characteristics, 2)
(interactions among inputs), 3) bridge variables, 4) environmental measures, 5) (interactions
involving environmental measures), 6) (input-environment interactions), 7) intermediate
outcomes.
The basic steps in the causal analytic regression analysis in respect to the self-rated pro-social
character outcomes for this research were as follows: 1) Fall 2000 pretest (where available
for variables on SIF2000), 2) demographic variables (SIF2000), 3) relevant input
characteristics (SIF2000: activities, goals, values, behavior), 4) bridge variables (SIF2000:
living arrangement/planned residence), 5) environment: institutional characteristics (CIRP
institutional data), 6) college major field of study (SIF2000), 7) intermediate outcomes:
CSBV2003: activities and experiences during college (involvement in groups, peer
relationships, faculty/staff relationships, activities, goals, values, behavior), 8) self-rated
outcomes in pro-social character (CSBV2003) as well as other collegiate outcomes including
emotional health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with sense of
community, satisfaction with opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection, satisfaction with
faculty interactions, satisfaction with relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall
college experience.
The following is a basic diagram of the major blocks of the experimental design, along with
the three sources of data:
Figure 1 Overview of IEO Design Model
Three sources of data: 1) SIF 2000, 2) CSBV 2003, 3) CIRP Institutional Information Data
linked through CIRP student identifier numbers and CIRP institutional identifier
The individual blocks of the CAMBA analysis and the variables that were selected that best
measure faculty-student interactions, and related goals and values:
Block 1: Pre-test where available (SIF2000):
Block 2: Demographic variables (SIF2000):
(Gender: 1-male, 2-female) (gender alone included here; other demographic analyses are
included in the cross tab analysis including religious preference and race)
Block 3: First-year college student’s prior-year activities; goals & values upon entering college
(SIF2000):
Talking with teachers outside of class as hours per week (Hours per Week 1=none, 2=less
than one, 3=1 to 2, 4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20).
goal ( not important, somewhat important, very important, essential)
communicating regularly with professors
Input Variables:
(SIF2000):
• Demographic
• Family of Origin
• Prior Year
Activities/
Behavioral
variables
• Goals & Values
Environment
Variables:
(CIRP Institutional
Data):
• Higher Ed
Institutional
Variables (type,
control,
selectivity)
Outcome
Variables:
(CSBV2003):
• Self-rated
character
variables
• Other Self-
rated
Collegiate
Outcomes
Bridge Effects: (SIF2000)
variables that can have
impact as both input &
environment: student’s
planned residential status
Bridge Effects: (SIF2000)
variables that can have impact
as both environment &
intermediate outcomes:
student’s planned major
Intermediate
Outcome Variables:
(CSBV2003):
• Behavior,
Relationships,
Involvement in
Peer Groups,
Faculty
Interactions
• Goals & Values
Block 4: Fall planned residence (SIF2000):
(1=with family or other relatives, 2=other private home, apartment, room
3=college dormitory, 4=fraternity or sorority house, 5=other campus student housing)
Block 5: Institutional characteristics (CIRP institutional data):
institutional control (1-public, 2-private)
institutional type (1-university, 2-4 yr college, 3-2yr college
institutional selectivity (SATV+M)
Block 6: Student’s planned major (SIF2000):
(as this is rather lengthy, it is only reported in detail in this first section)
1=art, fine and applied
2=English (language & literature)
3=history
4=journalism
5=language and literature (except English)
6=music
7=philosophy
8=speech
9=theater or drama
10=theology or religion
11=other arts and humanities
12=biology (general)
13=biochemistry or biophysics
14=botany
15=environmental science
16=marine (life) science
17=microbiology or bacteriology
18=zoology
19=other biological science
20=accounting
21=business administration (general)
22=finance
23=international business
24=marketing
25=management
26=secretarial studies
27=other business
28=business education
29=elementary education
30=music or art education
31=physical education or recreation
32=secondary education
33=special education
34=other education
35=aeronautical or astronautical engineering
36=civil engineering
37=chemical engineering
38=electrical or electronic engineering
39=industrial engineering
40=mechanical engineering
41=other engineering
42=astronomy
43=atmospheric science (including meteorology)
44=chemistry
45=earth science
46=marine science (including oceanography)
47=mathematics
48=physics
49=statistics
50=other physical science
51=architecture or urban planning
52=home economics
53=health technology (medical,dental,laboratory)
54=library or archival science
55=medicine, dentistry, veterinarian
56=nursing
57=pharmacy
58=therapy (occupational,physical,speech)
59=other professional
60=anthropology
61=economics
62=ethnic studies
63=geography
64=political science (gov't,int relations)
65=psychology
66=social work
67=sociology
68=women's studies
69=other social science
70=building trades
71=data processing or computer programming
72=drafting or design
73=electronics
74=mechanics
75=other technical
76=agriculture
77=communications (radio,TV,etc)
78=computer science
79=forestry
80=kinesiology
81=law enforcement
82=military science
83=other field
84=undecided
(Note: the majors order might be better, but in general the lower numbers correlate more with arts and
humanities, while the higher numbers correlate more with science, engineering, business, and education.
Education closer in numeric value to the liberal arts may have been a more useful grouping as education
majors may reflect outcomes more similar to arts and humanities majors as opposed to science,
engineering, or business; however this reflects mere conjecture the part of the researcher)
Block 7: College activities, goals, and values as reported by third-year college students
(CSBV2003):
Talking with faculty outside of class as hours per week (Hours per Week 1=none, 2=less than
one, 3=1 to 2, 4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20)
How often have professors at your current (or most recent) college provided you with:
(1=Not at all, 2=Occasionally, 3=Frequently)
Advice and guidance about your educational program
Respect (treated you like a colleague/peer)
Emotional support and encouragement
Opportunities to discuss the purpose/meaning of life
Intellectual challenge and stimulation
Help in achieving your professional goals
Encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters
Self-rated pro-social variables are listed below, which were treated as outcome variables and
are part of the CSBV2003. Students were asked to rate themselves in each of the areas as:
1=Lowest 10%, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above average, 5=Highest 10%. Other
related collegiate outcomes were included and available in the self-rating section.
Data Analysis
Care and scrutiny were used in analyzing the data from the surveys. The data were
downloaded into Excel formats and run in the SPSS (Statistical Program for Social Sciences)
software. Confidentiality was maintained on all responses and data provided by surveys as
the data were linked by anonymous numeric identifiers assigned and maintained exclusively
by HERI.
Data was analyzed using CAMBRA (Causal Analytic Modeling via Blocked Regression
Analysis), a form of blocked step-wise linear regression on the SPSS software so that student
input variables can be used to organize and analyze data. Substantial work has been done by
Astin & Dey (1996) using blocked step-wise linear regression analysis with college student
research. This method uses blocked step-wise linear regression with the IEO model and is
superior in accounting for effects created by the multicolinearity such as those that exist
when examining variables related to student’s experiences at college. According to Astin,
Sax and Avalos(1999) the CAMBRA approach to causal modeling focuses “on changes in
the partial regression coefficients for all variables at each step in the analysis… and provides
a powerful means of decomposing and comprehending multicolinearity in a complex
multivariate data set (p.192”). CAMBRA was developed by Astin and his colleagues at the
Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA after decades of working with data from the
Cooperative Research Institutional Program (CIRP) and analyzing data from higher
education institutes. According to Astin, this form of causal modeling allows for a superior
form of analysis over traditional path analysis or structural equation modeling for this type of
data (Astin & Dey, 1996).
Astin and Dey summarize one of the most important advantages of CAMBRA stating: “it
offers a unique way of dealing with one of the most vexing problems in multivariate research
-- a high degree of multicolinearity among the independent variables of interest” (1996, p.1).
Pointing out some of the difficulties in other forms of analysis, Astin writes: “Causal
modeling techniques currently do not provide researchers with adequate solutions to the
problems presented by the considerable degree of multicolinearity among variables that is
typically found in nonexperimental data. While the computational problem posed by
extensive multicolinearity in causal modeling has been addressed by Bollen (1989) and
others, multicolinearity can also raise significant interpretive problems (Astin & Dey, 1996,
p.2). Astin and Dey summarize the strength of the CAMBRA approach: ““It is our strong
feeling that policy goals are served neither by obfuscating the multicolinearity problem nor
by pretending that it doesn’t exist. In working with large data sets from the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program (CIRP) over the past couple of decades, we have developed
an application of regression analysis -- CAMBRA -- that not only confronts the
multicolinearity problem head-on, but also incorporates many of the advantages of both
causal and purely exploratory techniques” (Astin & Dey, 1996, p.3-4).
CAMBRA demonstrates additional advantages in its ability to take full advantage of the
powerful step-by-step program by analyzing variables one at a time and assessing their
predictive power, as well as the added benefit of analyzing the changes in coefficients for all
variables whether in the prediction equation or not. The value of this is considerable; Astin
and Dey explain: ““The CAMBRA method involves an unique application of stepwise
multiple linear regression. Stepwise regression is distinguished from other forms of
regression analysis in that it permits independent variables to be added to a regression
equation one at a time, according to which variable will add the most predictive power to
those independent variables already in the equation” (Astin & Dey, 1996, p.6).
Furthermore, stepwise regression analysis has an advantage over traditional path analysis in
that the latter does not require an investigator to examine all possible paths between an
independent variable and the last dependent variable, whereas this form of blocked step-wise
regression computes all direct path to the dependent variable (Astin and Dey, p.18).
Finally, CAMBRA yields an advantage in identifying small coefficients that are normally
ignored but in fact can have important impact on outcomes. Astin and Dey write, “Most
educational researchers and social scientists have been conditioned to judge certain
multivariate statistics in terms of their absolute size. This is especially true among researchers
who prefer the use of R2 and the “percentage of variance accounted for” approach. These
investigators would, for example, be inclined to judge most of the coefficients discussed in
this paper as “small,” “trivial in size,” or “statistically but not practically significant” (p.25).
Astin and Dey write, “In applying CAMBRA in literally hundreds of analyses, we have
learned that one cannot necessarily “tell a variable by its Beta” (p.25).
The advantages of CAMBRA are considerable and provide a proven form of analysis to the
data. The study used alpha equal to .05 to identify major blocks that contribute significantly
to predicting the individual self-ratings as well as the individual variables within each block.
Trustworthiness of Data
Careful attention has been paid to the trustworthiness of the data as well as issues of
confidentiality. The results of the SIF and CSBV can be considered strong in terms of
reliability and validity. The selection process previously detailed shows the strong attention
paid to gain a representative sampling that takes into account the diversity of students as well
as educational institutions giving the study strong external validity. In terms of instrument
validity, Colleges and universities have been using the SIF since 1965, and it is routinely
administered to incoming college first-year students. The data bank maintained by the
HERI makes the data bank available for research, particularly longitudinal studies. Research
conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA has an excellent record of
validity and reliability. In addition to Astin and his colleagues of the HERI at UCLA, a
technical advisory panel comprised of a diverse group of distinguished scholars, including
A.W. Chickering a noted scholar in the field, was engaged to develop the CSBV and in the
process reviewed all the present major survey instruments including all survey instruments
measuring religiosity or spirituality as covered by Hill and Hood’s (1999) and addressed all
aspects of those surveys (Cf. “The development of the College Student Beliefs and Values
Survey,” 2003). All questions and constructs were rigorously reviewed by the technical
advisory panel with a rigorous item analysis was done by the technical advisory panel.
Results of the survey also include a factor analysis of various aspects of the survey using
Cronbach’s alpha.
The sample size of over 3,000 is well within guidelines for statistical analysis (see minimum
sample size was selected from guidelines recommended by Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg,
W.R. (2003, p.143) in Educational Research (tables reference adaptation of Olejink (1984) and
represents a broad cross section of colleges and universities in respect to size and type.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Seven things that threaten to destroy us:
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Religion without sacrifice
Politics without principle –Mahatma Ghandi
Overview
The results of the statistical analysis demonstrate that faculty-student interactions are a
predictor of pro-social character development in college students. Activities, goals and
values were selected that best embodied faculty-student interactions on the SIF2000 and the
CSBV2003; their impact was measured within each respective block using the CAMBRA
analysis for each of the pro-social character self-ratings. We will look at the character self-
ratings in four useful groupings: achievement-oriented, compassionate self-concept, social,
and other collegiate outcomes. Many of the self-ratings could be viewed in more than one
grouping, and in some sense they are all inter-related. However for the sake of
manageability the self-ratings are grouped under the following:
• achievement orientation- courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve,
leadership ability, and self-confidence (intelligence)
• compassionate self-concept- altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity,
gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and patience
• social –cooperativeness, humility, loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, self-
awareness, self-confidence (social), self-understanding, and understanding of others
• other collegiate outcomes- emotional health, physical health, spirituality,
religiousness, satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with opportunity for
religious/spiritual reflection, satisfaction with faculty interactions, satisfaction with
relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall college experience.
Before proceeding it is helpful to remember that with a statistical model with so many blocks
and numerous variables, the coefficients for each variable can be relatively small, however
when examined they give very useful insight and analyses of the relative impact of each of
the variables within the block as well as the relationship within the entire model (Astin &
Dey, 1996). The method developed and refined by Astin and colleagues at HERI of UCLA
has been utilized extensively over time and yielded in-depth analyses. The variables in each
block were entered by stepwise regression so that only the variables with significant
predictive relationships would enter the regression (α = .05) entered in order from greatest
to least and would be taken out of the regression if the subsequent variable entering the
block rendered its significance in excess of α = .10. However, once the regression has
moved on to the next block of variables, all previous variables remain in the regression
regardless of whether new variables entering the regression diminish their respective
significance.
Before examining the results in detail, it is imperative to reiterate that the considerable
advantages of putting so many variables into the statistical model in order to understand a
wide range of variables on a particular outcome as well as the interactions of each variable is
that the variables themselves register a diminished output due to the fact that there are so
many variables sharing the predictive power in the regression analysis. Therefore researchers
more attuned to using a few variables need to recognize the importance of smaller
coefficients in the output. In explaining the impact of adding even a second related variable
with multicolinearity characteristics, Astin and Dey explain, “In other words, the predictive
power of each of these variables is somewhat diminished when the other is added to the
equation. Since there is a degree of multicolinearity among these two variables, they
necessarily “share” predictive power when they are both in the equation” (Astin & Dey,
1996, p.13). This effect is magnified even more when there are numerous variables with
multicolinearity.
The initial block/s of variables are not impacted as much as variables in the later blocks
because there are less variables to share the predictive power earlier in the regression
analysis. However, variables in the later blocks when run by themselves would obviously
demonstrate a much higher coefficient. Even so while the individual coefficients for the
variables may still seem somewhat low for those used to examining variables for more
traditional models where we expect a higher correlation, when taken together even given a
high degree of multicolinearity, these major blocks demonstrate a significant predictive
relationship with the pro-social character development of college students and other related
outcomes related to student development in college.
Results of Faculty-Student Interaction Variables in Predicting Pro-social Character
Development in College Students
The results of the statistical analysis demonstrate the predictive relationship of faculty-
student interactions activities, goals, and values on pro-social character development as well
as other related outcomes in college students. It also shows the results from the other
blocks of variables including gender, planned residence, institutional characteristics, and
planned major. For a more complete report of results including exact values for all statistical
outputs please consult author’s dissertation.
Table 2 Faculty-Student Interactions and Pro-social Character Development in College Students (α
= .05) Y = yes, N = no, N/A = not available (for pre-test), or not applicable for all others; F =
female, M =male, Institutional Control (public; private), Institutional Type (2 yr, 4yr college,
university), Institutional Selectivity (SAT/ACT combined math/verbal), A&H = Arts and
Humanities; (-) negative relationship
Characteristic
Pre-
test
Gender
High
School
Goals,
Values,
Experience
Planned
Residence
Institution
Control,
Type,
Selectivity
Planned
Major
College
Goals,
Values,
Experience
achievement
orientation
courage
N/A
M
Y
N
SEL (-)
Y
A&H
Y
creativity
Y
N
N
N
SEL (-)
Y
A&H
Y
dependability
N/A
N
N
N
TYPE
university
N
Y
drive to achieve
Y
N
Y
N
SEL (-)
N
Y
leadership
ability
Y
M
Y
N
N
N
Y
self-confidence
(intelligence)
Y
M
N
Y home/
off-
campus
N
Y
A&H
Y
compassionate
self-concept
altruism
N/A
N
Y
N
SEL(+)
CONT (+)
private
N
Y
compassion
N/A
F
Y
N
N
Y
science
&
engineer
Y
empathy
N/A
F
Y
N
N
N
Y
forgiveness
N/A
M
Y
N
SEL (-)
N
Y
generosity
N/A
N
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
SEL (-)
N
Y
gratefulness
N/A
F
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
SEL (-)
N
Y
helpfulness
N/A
F
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
SEL (-)
N
Y
kindness
N/A
F
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
SEL (-)
N
Y
patience
N/A
N
N
N
SEL (-)
N
Y
social
cooperativeness
Y
N
Y
N
SEL (-)
N
Y
loyalty
N/A
M
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
N
N
Y
open-
mindedness
N/A
N
Y
N
CONT
public
N
Y
respectfulness
N/A
N
Y
Y home/
off-
campus
SEL (-)
CONT
private
N
Y
humility
N/A
M
N
N
N
N
Y
self-awareness
N/A
M
Y
N
N
Y
A&H
Y
self-confidence
(social)
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
self-
understanding
Y
M
Y
N
N
Y
A&H
Y
understanding
Y
F
Y
N
N
N
Y
of others
other
collegiate
outcomes
emotional
health
Y
M
N
Y campus
N
N
Y
physical health
Y
M
Y
N
N
N
Y
spirituality
Y
N
N
N
CONT
private
SEL (-)
Y
A&H
Y
religiousness
N/A
N
Y
N
CONT
private
SEL (-)
Y
A&H
Y
opportunity for
religious/spiritu
al reflection
N/A
N
Y
Y campus
CONT
private
SEL (+)
Y
A&H
Y
satisfaction with
sense of
community
N/A
N
Y
Y campus
CONT
private
Y
A&H
Y
Satisfaction
with interaction
with faculty
N/A
N
Y
Y campus
CONT
private
SEL (-)
TYPE 2-yr
college
Y
A&H
Y
satisfaction with
relevance of
coursework
N/A
N
Y
Y campus
CONT
private
Y
A&H
Y
satisfaction with
overall college
experience
N/A
N
Y
Y campus
CONT
private
Y
A&H
Y
As illustrated in the preceding chart, faculty-student interactions had a significant predictive
relationship with college student pro-social character self-ratings as well as other collegiate
measures. Again, many of the self-ratings could be viewed in more than one grouping, and
in some sense they are all inter-related. However, it is well to realize that the character self-
ratings represent a broad cross-section of character and one would expect that the range of
variables would not impact each character self-rating in the same way or to the same degree.
Faculty-student interactions had a stronger predictive relationship with achievement-oriented
character traits and other collegiate outcomes, than compassionate self-concept and social
character traits. However, faculty-student interaction variables had a predictive relationship
with student pro-social character. It is again helpful to look at an overview of the character
self-ratings in four useful groupings: achievement-oriented, compassionate self-concept,
social, and other collegiate outcomes.
Achievement-Oriented
[Achievement orientation- courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve, leadership
ability, self-confidence (intelligence)]
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more achievement-oriented, the
block of faculty-student interactions for entering first-year students for the previous year and
related goals and values entering college had a significant predictive relationship with three
of the achievement-oriented character self-ratings including courage, drive-to-achieve, and
leadership ability. Both the individual variables related to faculty-student interactions
“talking with teachers/faculty outside of class” as hours per week during the year prior to
entering college, and goal of “communicating regularly with professors” often had a strong
relationship with achievement-oriented character ratings.
In respect to college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by third-year college students, the block had a significant predictive relationship on
all of the achievement-oriented character self-ratings. Some of the strongest predictive
individual variables with significance were help in achieving professional goals, talking with
faculty outside of class, (Hours per week in last year spent 1=none, 2=less than one, 3=1 to 2,
4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20), and to a lesser degree “emotional
support and encouragement”, showing respect, and “advice/guidance about education
program.” It may be well that despite the fact that colleges and universities have trained
professionals in these areas, faculty are often the first individuals students turn to in these
situations, particularly with students living off campus or non-traditional students. Colleges
would do well to help give some modest training to faculty in both of these areas and even
in the best way to make a referral to the other professionals, areas that are not areas of
training and expertise of faculty.
The analysis also demonstrates that faculty-student interactions have a much stronger impact
on achievement-oriented character and overall college outcomes than social or
compassionate self-concept related character. However, it is interesting to note that faculty-
student interactions can and often do have a significant predictive relationship with social
and compassionate self-concept character qualities.
In respect to gender, males had a tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to courage,
leadership ability, and self-confidence (intelligence). Reasons behind this may either be
argued from a variety of perspectives including that it reflects particular genetic strengths, or
more commonly the nurturing of the family of origin and the influence of social norms and
expectations of the wider community. However, it would be very interesting to see if the
more recent survey (SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed a decrease in the disparity, particularly as
women continue to make strides in corporate and academic achievement.
Planned residence did not have a significant predictive relationship with any of the
achievement-oriented character qualities, except for intellectual self-confidence.
In respect to institutional characteristics, institutional selectivity was the only factor that had
a significant predictive relationship with more than one character quality; and surprisingly,
institutional selectivity had a negative correlation with self-rated courage, creativity, and
drive-to-achieve.
Planned major had a significant predictive relationship with three of the character traits with
a negative correlation with courage, creativity, and self-confidence (intelligence) indicating
students majoring in the arts or humanities tending to rate themselves higher with respect to
these three character traits. However, as previously noted, the majors order might be better
from a numeric standpoint, but in general the lower numbers correlate more with arts and
humanities, while the higher numbers correlate more with science, engineering, business, and
education. Education closer in numeric value to the liberal arts may have been a more useful
grouping as education majors may reflect outcomes more similar to arts and humanities
majors as opposed to science, engineering, or business; however this reflects mere conjecture
the part of this researcher.
Compassionate Self-Concept
[Compassionate self-concept- altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness,
helpfulness, kindness, and patience]
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more compassionate self-concept
and faculty-student interactions, the block of activities, goals, and values having to do with
the year prior to entering college and related goals and values entering college had a
significant predictive relationship with all but one of the character self-ratings. The strongest
individual variable related to faculty-student interactions was goal of “communicating
regularly with professors” in incoming first-year students on the SIF2000, followed by
“talking with teachers outside of class” as hours per week during the year prior to entering
college.
The block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by third-year students had a significant predictive relationship in every character
self-rating related to compassionate self-concept. The strongest individual variables with
significance were “encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters,” as well as time
spent “talking with faculty outside of class” (Hours per week in last year spent 1=none,
2=less than one, 3=1 to 2, 4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20), followed by
emotional support and encouragement, advice and guidance about educational program,
opportunities to discuss the purpose/meaning of life, and intellectual challenge and
stimulation.
The analysis again demonstrates that faculty-student interactions have a much stronger
impact on achievement-oriented character and overall college outcomes than social or
compassionate self-concept related character. However, it is interesting to note that faculty-
student interactions can and often do have a significant predictive relationship with social
and compassionate self-concept character qualities. Although it is more speculative in
nature, one might assume that this is strongest when there is a strong mentoring relationship
between a faculty member and a student, or a faculty member is a faculty adviser for a
student group or residence hall and demonstrates strong pro-social community involvement
themselves.
On a secondary level, in respect to gender, males had a tendency to rate themselves higher
with respect to forgiveness; while females had a tendency to rate themselves higher with
respect to compassion, empathy, gratefulness, helpfulness, and kindness. Once again
reasons behind this may either be argued from a variety of perspectives including that it
reflects particular genetic strengths, or more commonly the nurturing of the family of origin
and the influence of social norms and expectations of the wider community. However, it
would be very interesting to see if the more recent survey (SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed
similar results.
Planned residence had a significant predictive relationship with four of the nine character
traits including generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, and kindness, with students living at
home or in off-campus housing tending to rate themselves higher.
In respect to institutional characteristics, institutional selectivity was the only factor that had
a significant predictive relationship with more than one character quality; and surprisingly,
institutional selectivity had a negative correlation with six of the nine character qualities
including forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and patience.
However, students at both more selective institutions as well as private institutions tended to
rate themselves higher with respect to altruism. It may be the case that students and their
families who focus strongly on entrance into the more selective educational institutions, as
well as the more selective institutions themselves, may focus on academic performance to a
degree that diminishes other character qualities such as those that are part of compassionate
self-concept. Students, and their families, as well as the more selective institutions, may wish
to reflect on this, and depending on their goals, become more intentional about these
character qualities.
Planned major had a significant predictive relationship with only one of the character
qualities related to compassionate self-concept.
Social
[Social–cooperativeness, loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness,
self-confidence (social), self-understanding, and understanding of others]
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more social in nature and the
block of activities for incoming first-year student’s prior year activities and related goals and
values entering college, had a significant predictive relationship with all but one of the
character self-ratings. Both the individual variables the goal of “communicating regularly
with professors” and “talking with teachers outside of class” as hours per week during the
year prior to entering college had a significant predictive relationship with most social
character self-ratings.
In respect to the block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-
interactions as reported by third-year students, there was a significant predictive relationship
with each of the social character self-ratings. Some of the strongest individual variables with
significance were with time spent with faculty outside of class, encouragement to discuss
religious/spiritual matters, and help in achieving professional goals.
On a secondary level, in respect to gender, males had a tendency to rate themselves higher
with respect to humility, loyalty, self-awareness, and self-understanding; while females had a
tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to understanding of others. Once again
reasons behind this may either be viewed from a variety of perspectives including that it
reflects particular genetic strengths, or more commonly the nurturing of the family of origin
and the influence of social norms and expectations of the wider community. And once
again, it would be interesting to see if the more recent survey (SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed
similar results.
Planned residence had a significant predictive relationship with two of the character traits
including loyalty and respectfulness, with students living at home or in off-campus housing
tending to rate themselves higher.
In respect to institutional characteristics, institutional selectivity had a significant predictive
relationship with cooperativeness and respectfulness, both with a negative correlation.
Students at public institutions tended to rate themselves higher with respect to open-
mindedness, while students at private institutions tended to rate themselves higher with
respect to respectfulness.
Planned major had a significant predictive relationship with two of the social character traits
including self-awareness and self-understanding; in both cases students majoring in the arts
or humanities tended to rate themselves higher.
Other Collegiate Outcomes
[Other collegiate outcomes- emotional health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with
opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection, satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction
with faculty, satisfaction with relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall college experience]
In respect to other collegiate outcomes the areas vary considerably and so are best
considered on their own. However, one cannot resist some very general remarks. In terms
of goals and values, entering first-year students, the block had a significant predictive
relationship with most of the self-ratings. The strongest individual variable with these set of
characteristics was overwhelmingly the goal of “communicating regularly with professors” in
incoming first-year students on the SIF2000 which had a strong positive impact on most all
of the self-ratings. It is well to note that good relationships with teachers in the year prior
to entering college, which in most though not all cases is high school, who also make
themselves available outside the classroom makes for positive expectations for relationships
and experiences with college faculty, and demonstrates a strong impact on shaping
expectations for much of college life.
The block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by the same college students in the spring of their third year of college had a
significant predictive relationship with all of the ratings under other collegiate outcomes.
Some of the most predictive individual variables with positive correlation were a help in
achieving professional goals, encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters, talking
with professors outside of class: (Hours per week in last year spent 1=none, 2=less than one,
3=1 to 2, 4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20), and advice and guidance
about educational program.
The analysis also demonstrates that faculty-student interactions have a much stronger
predictive relationship with achievement-oriented character and other collegiate outcomes
than social or compassionate self-concept related character. However, it is interesting to
note that faculty-student interactions can and often do have a significant predictive
relationship with social and compassionate self-concept character qualities.
On a secondary level, in respect to gender, males had a tendency to rate themselves higher
with respect to emotional health and physical health, otherwise gender did not have a
significant predictive relationship with the other self-ratings for other collegiate outcomes.
Planned residence had a significant predictive relationship with all but three of the other
collegiate outcomes, with students in on-campus housing tending to rate themselves higher
in emotional health, opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection (though not with self-rated
spirituality or religiosity/religiousness), satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction
with amount of contact with faculty, relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall
college experience.
In respect to institutional characteristics, institutional selectivity had a significant predictive
relationship with spirituality, religiosity/religiousness, and satisfaction with amount of
contact with faculty, all with a negative correlation. However, students at private institutions
tended to rate themselves higher with respect to spirituality, religiosity/religiousness,
opportunity for religious spiritual reflection, which may reflect the fact that many private
educational institutions are religious in nature. Students at private institutions also gave
higher ratings for satisfaction with relevance of coursework and satisfaction with overall
college experience.
Planned major had a significant predictive relationship with all but two of the other
collegiate outcomes. Students majoring in the arts and humanities gave higher ratings for
spirituality, religiosity/religiousness, opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection, satisfaction
with sense of community, satisfaction with amount of contact with faculty, relevance of
coursework, and satisfaction with overall college experience.
The analysis again demonstrates that faculty-student interactions have a much stronger
predictive relationship with achievement-oriented character and overall college outcomes
than social or compassionate self-concept related character. However, it is interesting to
note that faculty-student interactions can and often do have a significant predictive
relationship with social and compassionate self-concept character qualities. Although it is
more speculative in nature, one might assume that this is strongest when there is a strong
mentoring relationship between a faculty member and a student, or a faculty member is a
faculty adviser for a student group or residence hall and demonstrates strong pro-social
community involvement themselves.
In sum, in terms of the block of activities related to faculty-student interaction in the year
prior to entering college and related goals and values of entering first-year students there is a
significant predictive relationship of faculty-student interaction on character self-ratings.
The strongest individual variables with these set of characteristics was overwhelmingly the
goal of “communicating regularly with professors” in incoming first-year students on the
SIF2000. Therefore one of the best things that can be done to help students have good
relationships with professors and have a good overall college experience is to encourage
them to set a goal of communicating regularly with their professors. It is also well to note
that good relationship with teachers in the year prior to entering college, which in most
though not all cases is high school, who also make themselves available outside the
classroom makes for positive expectations for relationships and experiences with college
faculty.
In respect to college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by third-year college students, this block had a significant predictive relationship
with all of the self-ratings. Some of the strongest individual variables with significance were
a number of factors including help in achieving professional goals, talking with faculty
outside of class: (Hours per week in last year spent 1=none, 2=less than one, 3=1 to 2, 4=3 to
5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20), advice and guidance about educational
program, encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters, emotional support and
encouragement, showing respect, and intellectual challenge and stimulation. Among the
strongest variables related to faculty-student interactions was “talking with teachers/faculty
outside of class” as hours per week during the year prior to entering college. This seems to
be the case despite the fact that the survey was put together with this slated as an activity in
hours per week; and although this breakdown would make sense for most activities, it seems
unrealistic for time spent with teachers or professors: (Hours per week in last year spent
1=none, 2=less than one, 3=1 to 2, 4=3 to 5, 5=6 to 10, 6=11 to 15, 7=16 to 20, 8=over 20).
Most students do not spend even an hour a week outside of class with a teacher/professor
and certain choices 4 and above indicating three or more hours a week is unrealistic.
Despite this somewhat unrealistic demarcation, “talking with teachers/faculty outside of
class” demonstrated a significant predictive relationship with many of the character self-
ratings. It is well to note that the latter question does not specify communicating with
faculty about class subjects and may include faculty interactions about other matters
including college clubs and groups. Therefore one of the best things that can be done to help
students have good relationships with professors and have a good overall college experience
is not only to encourage them to set a goal of communicating regularly with their professors,
but also to avail themselves of opportunities to communicate with professors outside the
classroom, which may include not only office appointments with professors to discuss class
performance and projects, but also to join groups where faculty are advisors and be able to
spend time with faculty in that manner.
On the other hand, showing respect to students had a very broad positive impact, and
professors should be encouraged to understand that however they might show respect it is
appreciated by students and has a broad positive impact on pro-social character
development as well as other collegiate outcomes.
Somewhat lower than expected was “advice/guidance about education program.” This may
be more an indicator that while faculty are well-trained in their respective fields, they are not
so well trained in giving advice about the educational programs or emotional support and
guidance. It may be that despite the fact that colleges and universities have trained
professionals in these areas, the faculty are often the first individuals students turn to in
these situations and colleges would do well to help give a some modest training to faculty in
both of these areas and even in the best way to make a referral to the other professionals,
areas which are not areas of training and expertise of faculty.
Perhaps most surprising was the broad positive impact of opportunities to discuss the
purpose/meaning of life, encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters, by faculty.
This was not simply in religious or private schools, but seemed to have a positive impact for
most though not all of the character self-ratings in the public universities. Clearly this sort of
opportunity occurs more naturally and more often in religious or private institutions, which
often have as part of their mission some religious or philosophic purpose and also occurs
more often in classes that are religious or philosophic in nature. However, it might be noted
that the variable did not specify that the students were lectured by faculty on the
meaning/purpose of life or religious/spiritual matters, but rather were given the opportunity
to discuss such themes. Faculty less comfortable with religious/spiritual or philosophic
discussions might well note that simply being able to facilitate such discussions when they
are appropriate in a way that honors diversity of background and belief and the opinion of
every individual is interesting and stimulating to students. Institutions may well consider
holding an occasional workshop that might help faculty know the best ways to facilitate such
discussions in a manner that honors diversity. Speaking of these topics in relationship to
character also gives another avenue to facilitate a discussion that honors diversity of
background and belief. Character can provide a common theme in which to talk about
differing beliefs and backgrounds in a meaningful way. Such discussions might be even
easier to facilitate or meaningful to students if the institution became more intentional about
character as part of its mission. These deeper level discussions also have often been some of
the most innovative and influential in all of history as one can see in discussions of as diverse
as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as well as Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad, all of whom have
had lasting impact on the societies of the world however individuals may choose to view
them.
“Emotional support and encouragement” often had a positive predictive relationship with
diverse character self-ratings and faculty may want to note that even though higher
education institutions have trained counselors to handle a broad range of student issues,
students often look to faculty for a certain amount of emotional support and
encouragement. Faculty may also want to note that they are often the first college personnel
to notice emotional needs in students and learn how to better themselves in offering such
occasional counsel as well as familiarize themselves with trained counselors in student
services so they can do an even better job of referral. Colleges and universities may want to
invite faculty to attend some of the workshops often held for resident life personnel to offer
basic level support and encouragement as well as understand when a referral would be wise
as well as the best way in which to make such a referral. This is particularly noteworthy
given high incidence among college students of chronic anxiety or depression, and such
disorders as anorexia and bulimia, as well as suicide, or campus violence. Again, faculty are
not expected to be professional counselors and are busy attending to lectures, research, and
other professional activities, however these might be skills that faculty might find useful, and
might even feel closer collaborative ties to college personnel in counseling, student services,
and residential life.
Not surprisingly, “intellectual challenge and stimulation” had a significant predictive
relationship with many outcomes not only in achievement-oriented areas but other areas as
well.
It is also well to note faculty live busy lives often pressured to achieve academic research,
submit professional articles, lecture in class, as well as grade student papers, projects and
labs, and therefore their time is often limited. However, the time they spend with students
outside of class whether counseling them in terms of academic programs, or class lectures,
or mentoring them in co-curricular activities, has a strong and enduring impact on students
lives in fostering a broad range of pro-social character qualities.
In an educational environment in which educational models are increasingly mirroring
business models with metrics emphasizing productivity and efficiency, it is well to remember
that this set of metrics revealed in this research underscores the broad positive impact of
quality faculty-student interactions both in the classroom as well as beyond classroom in
influencing student’s lives in a positive and enduring manner.
Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study
Although the data from the SIF2000/CSBV2003 provide a wealth of insight and
information, further data will be available from the 2004SIF/CSBV2007 surveys by the
HERI regarding this data will shed even greater light on these issues. (The data for this
study, like others with the HERI, are exclusive to the institute for the first three years
following the study, and should be available shortly.) A similar analysis of the
2004SIF/CSBV2007 could provide three important elements: First, the new data provides a
pre-test not just for some, but for all of the self-rated character traits. Secondly, it is a much
larger sample across an even broader cross section of colleges and universities and could
yield additional insights. Finally, a different cohort of students would yield additional
confirmation of results as well as possible changes in social norms as a whole, such as gender
roles and perceptions and institutional changes. The CSBV2007 in conjunction with the
SIF2004 would provide an excellent pretest on all of the self-ratings for character, rather
than on some but not all of the self-rated character traits as in the SIF2000/CSBV2003. It
is hoped that this study will be followed by this researcher in the same process of examining
the results of the SIF2004/CSBV2007, that allow for a pre-test for all of the self-rated
outcomes. The more recent dataset also gives a much larger and more recent sample and
would be excellent to provide additional corroboration for the findings, as well as compare
the results for different cohorts to see if there are any changes.
A caveat is in order for the potential over-interpretation of relatively small betas of the
individual variables, which though statistically significant, remain relatively small. The focus
of this study has been on the blocks of variables themselves, and then subsequently the
individual variables that are significant within those blocks. Although the reason for
relatively small betas within the framework of numerous blocks of variables has been
previously explained along with the corresponding small values due to that arrangement;
however it is still worth cautioning that care should be made not to over-interpret these
individual variables. It is hoped that subsequent research will be conducted within these
major areas that will also include individual variables run against each of these same self-
rated outcomes, which will further illuminate pro-social character development in college
students, which is beyond the scope of this research and would be too much to include in
this study.
A second caveat is in order in respect to the fact that all indicators of development are self-
ratings and therefore represent self-perceptions rather than any external measure of
development. However, the greatest concern in this area usually relates to the flaws in
memory, for example, Schacter (1999) has warned against seven flaws of memory, including
transience (decreasing accessibility of information over time), absent-mindedness (inattentive
or shallow processing contributing to weak memory), blocking (temporary inaccessibility to
information stored in memory), misattribution (attributing a recollection or idea to the
wrong source), suggestibility (memories implanted as a result of leading questions or
expectations), bias (retrospective distortions and unconscious influences related to current
knowledge and beliefs), persistence (pathological remembrances, information or events
subject cannot forget, even though they may wish they could) (Cf. Chong). However, the
major difficulties with self-ratings are absent or greatly diminished in respect to this survey
due to the fact that these self-ratings are not related so much to memory as to the present
time because students are asked to rate themselves in respect to each of these areas at the
time of the survey. In other words, because these distortions are primarily related to
memory and past events, and the self-ratings of this research are related to the present time,
there is little reason for concern other than perhaps bias. A more relevant concern for
reliability would be the impact of social-bias, where it may be deemed that the administrators
of the test, or society at large, are looking for higher ratings in these socially desirable traits.
However, the guaranteed anonymity of the student’s identities taking the survey, and the
preservation of that anonymity, helps ensure a minimal impact of social bias. The Higher
Education Research Institute has also attempted to assess and address the reliability of the
CSBV in the design of the instrument and has also run Cronbach’s alpha on a number of
these self-ratings (Cf. Astin & Astin, 2003, The development of the college students’ beliefs and values
survey CSBV).
This study is also unable to provide insights and information into the enduring quality of
changes in pro-social character development in college students post graduation and into
their professional career and community lives. A further longitudinal study that surveyed
these same students after graduating from college and entering the workforce and
community life would also offer insight into the long term impact of the level of holistic
development of college students beyond their college years into their professional careers
and community involvement.
The field could also benefit from qualitative studies of college students which might use
open-ended questions and focus groups, as well as peer evaluations to further elucidate
scholarly understanding of the impact of these four major areas and their impact on pro-
social character development in college students. Such qualitative studies could offer further
insight and information on the interaction of each of the major areas impacting pro-social
character development.
Contribution to the Literature and Recommendations for Improvement of Practice
As illustrated in the preceding statistical results and analysis of variables related to activities,
goals and values related to faculty-student interactions had a strong predictive relationship
with college student self-rated pro-social character as well as other collegiate outcomes.
However, this research in no way diminishes the role of genetics and the family of origin,
along with the wider community, in shaping character in the earlier years of life. In fact, the
pre-test is a good measure of the impact of the confluence of these forces in shaping
character up until the student enters college. The focus of this research is to highlight the
influences of pro-social character development during the college years including activities,
goals, and values related to faculty-student interactions, emphasizing that college students
continue to develop in many important aspects including pro-social character development
during their time in college.
The results of this study continue to add weight to the work of scholars who have claimed
that college students change and develop in important ways during the college years
(Chickering, 1981; Brown, 1972; Winston & Miller, 1987).
These changes touch not only the intellectual realm of development, but also include
affective and psychosocial dimensions of development such as Chickering’s earlier seven
vectors theory (1969, 1993) which looks at college student development along seven vectors
including: developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward
interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity,
clarifying purpose, and developing integrity.
Student psychosocial development along the lines of character can be a useful and
measureable parameter that adds depth and clarity to many of these facets of student
development.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) claimed there were seven major influences on college student
development: 1) Clear and Consistent Objectives, 2) Institutional Size, 3) Student-Faculty
Relationships, 4) Curriculum, 5) Teaching, 6) Friendships and Student Communities, 7)
Student Development Programs and Services. Although this research does not attempt to
verify all Chickering and Reisser’s major influences of college student development, this
research supports that a number of the influences including institutional size, student-faculty
relationships, friendships and student communities, and student development programs and
services.
As illustrated in the analysis in the body of this research contained herein, the secondary
factors including gender, institutional characteristics, and planned major had a significant
predictive relationship on many, though not all, of the pro-social character traits as well as
other collegiate outcomes.
In respect to gender and achievement-oriented character traits including courage, creativity,
dependability, drive-to-achieve, leadership ability, and self-confidence (intellectual), males
had a tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to courage, leadership ability, and self-
confidence (intelligence). Reasons behind this may either be argued from a variety of
perspectives including that it reflects particular genetic strengths, or more commonly the
nurturing of the family of origin and the influence of social norms and expectations of the
wider community. However, it would be very interesting to see if the more recent survey
(SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed a decrease in the disparity, particularly as women continue to
make strides in corporate and academic achievement.
In respect to gender and compassionate self-concept character traits, (including altruism,
compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and
patience), males had a tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to forgiveness; while
females had a tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to compassion, empathy,
gratefulness, helpfulness, and kindness. Once again reasons behind this finding may be
argued from a variety of perspectives including that gender differences reflect particular
genetic strengths, or more commonly the nurturing of the family of origin and the influence
of social norms and expectations of the wider community. However, it would be very
interesting to see if the more recent survey (SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed similar results.
In respect to gender and social character traits, (including cooperativeness, loyalty, open-
mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness, self-confidence (social), self-
understanding, and understanding of others), males had a tendency to rate themselves higher
with respect to humility, loyalty, self-awareness, and self-understanding; while females had a
tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to understanding of others. Once again
reasons behind this may either be viewed from a variety of perspectives including that it
reflects particular genetic strengths, or more commonly the nurturing of the family of origin
and the influence of social norms and expectations of the wider community. And once
again, it would be interesting to see if the more recent survey (SIF2004/CSBV2007) revealed
similar results.
In respect to gender and other collegiate outcomes, including emotional health, physical
health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with opportunity for religious/spiritual
reflection, satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction with faculty
(included only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with relevance of coursework
(included only under faculty-student interactions), and satisfaction with overall college
experience, males had a tendency to rate themselves higher with respect to emotional health
and physical health, otherwise gender did not have a significant predictive relationship with
the other self-ratings for other collegiate outcomes.
In respect to planned residence and achievement-oriented character traits including courage,
creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve, leadership ability, and self-confidence
(intellectual), planned residence did not have a significant predictive relationship with any of
the achievement-oriented character qualities, except for intellectual self-confidence, which
was significant for self-confidence (intellectual) under faculty-student interactions.
However, in respect to planned residence and compassionate self-concept character traits,
(including altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness,
kindness, and patience), planned residence had a significant predictive relationship with four
of the nine character traits with students living at home or in off-campus housing tending to
rate themselves higher with respect to generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, and kindness. It
may be that living in close proximity to other peers supports the strengthening of
compassionate character traits.
In respect to planned residence and social character traits, (including cooperativeness,
loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness, self-confidence (social),
self-understanding, and understanding of others, planned residence had a significant
predictive relationship with two of the character traits including loyalty and respectfulness,
with students living at home or in off-campus housing tending to rate themselves higher. It
may be that students living at home maintain closer ties with family and this strengthens
loyalty and respectfulness, though this is speculative. (However under student spirituality,
planned residence had a positive relationship with open-mindedness, indicating that students
living on campus tended to give higher ratings; also under spirituality loyalty was not found
to have a significant relationship with planned residence.)
In respect to planned residence and other collegiate outcomes,( including emotional health,
physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with opportunity for religious/spiritual
reflection (included only with faculty-student interactions and student spirituality),
satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction with faculty (included
only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with relevance of coursework (included
only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with interaction of other students (not
included with faculty-student interactions), and satisfaction with overall college experience),
planned residence had a significant predictive relationship with all but three of the other
collegiate outcomes, with students in on-campus housing tending to rate themselves higher
in emotional health, opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection (though not with self-rated
spirituality or religiosity/religiousness), satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction
with amount of contact with faculty, relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall
college experience. (Self-rated religiosity/religiousness was significant under student
spirituality regression analysis alone, but was near the cutoff value.)
In respect to institutional characteristics and achievement-oriented character traits, (including
courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve, leadership ability, and self-confidence
(intellectual)), institutional selectivity was the only factor that had a significant predictive
relationship with more than one character quality; and surprisingly, institutional selectivity
had a negative correlation with self-rated courage, creativity, and drive-to-achieve.
In respect to institutional characteristics and compassionate self-concept character traits,
(including altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness,
kindness, and patience), institutional selectivity was the only factor that had a significant
predictive relationship with more than one character quality; and surprisingly, institutional
selectivity had a negative correlation with six of the nine character qualities including
forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and patience. However, students
at both more selective institutions as well as private institutions tended to rate themselves
higher with respect to altruism. It may be the case that students and their families who
focus strongly on entrance into the more selective educational institutions, as well as the
more selective institutions themselves, may focus on academic performance to a degree that
diminishes other character qualities such as those that are part of compassionate self-
concept. Students, and their families, as well as the more selective institutions, may wish to
reflect on this, and depending on their goals, become more intentional about these character
qualities.
In respect to institutional characteristics and social character traits, (including
cooperativeness, loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness, self-
confidence (social), self-understanding, and understanding of others), institutional selectivity
had a significant predictive relationship with cooperativeness and respectfulness, both with a
negative correlation. Students at public institutions tended to rate themselves higher with
respect to open-mindedness.
In respect to institutional characteristics and other collegiate outcomes, (including emotional
health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with opportunity for
religious/spiritual reflection (included only with faculty-student interactions and student
spirituality), satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction with faculty
(included only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with relevance of coursework
(included only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with interaction of other
students (not included with faculty-student interactions), and satisfaction with overall college
experience), institutional selectivity had a significant predictive relationship with spirituality,
religiosity/religiousness, and satisfaction with amount of contact with faculty, and
satisfaction with interaction with other students all with a negative correlation. However,
students at private institutions tended to rate themselves higher with respect to spirituality,
religiosity/religiousness, opportunity for religious spiritual reflection, which may reflect the
fact that many private educational institutions are religious in nature. Students at private
institutions also gave higher ratings for satisfaction with relevance of coursework,
satisfaction with interaction with other students, satisfaction with sense of community, and
satisfaction with overall college experience.
In respect to student’s planned major and achievement-oriented character traits including
courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve, leadership ability, and self-confidence
(intellectual), planned major had a significant predictive relationship with three of the
character traits with a negative correlation with courage, creativity, and self-confidence
(intelligence) with students majoring in the arts or humanities tending to rate themselves
higher with respect to these three character traits.
In respect to student’s planned major and compassionate self-concept character traits,
(including altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness,
kindness, and patience), planned major did not have a significant predictive relationship with
any of the character qualities related to compassionate self-concept, with the exception of
compassion, which was significant only under faculty-student interactions and close to the
cutoff significance.
In respect to student’s planned major and social character traits, (including cooperativeness,
loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness, self-confidence (social),
self-understanding, and understanding of others), planned major had a significant predictive
relationship with two of the social character traits including self-awareness and self-
understanding; in both cases students majoring in the arts or humanities tended to rate
themselves higher.
In respect to student’s planned major and other collegiate outcomes, including emotional
health, physical health, spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with opportunity for
religious/spiritual reflection (included only with faculty-student interactions and student
spirituality), satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction with faculty
(included only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with relevance of coursework
(included only under faculty-student interactions), satisfaction with interaction of other
students (not included with faculty-student interactions), and satisfaction with overall college
experience, planned major had a significant predictive relationship with all but two of the
other collegiate outcomes. Students majoring in the arts and humanities gave higher ratings
for spirituality, religiosity/religiousness, opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection,
satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with amount of contact with faculty,
relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall college experience.
Previous research has confirmed that a broad range of college experiences influences
student’s cognitive and social development. Astin (1993), Feldman and Newcomb (1969),
Kuh, Vesper, Connolly & Pace (1997), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) all concluded
that cognitive and social development of college students is influenced by a variety of factors
including academic coursework, student effort, involvement in out-of-class experiences, and
interaction with faculty and peers. This research continues to add support to the factors of
several of those factors including student involvement in out-of-class experiences and
faculty-student interactions.
Most importantly, this research supports that faculty-student interactions have a significant
predictive relationship with pro-social character development in college students. The table
with the results of the analysis of the blocks of variables relating to faculty-student
interactions demonstrates the strong predictive relationship these blocks of variables with
each of the character traits along with other collegiate outcomes. Previous studies have
emphasized that student involvement is positively related to cognitive and psychosocial
development (Astin, 1977, 1993; Kuh, Vesper, Connolly, & Pace, 1997; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991) and that involvement can take a number of different forms, including
involvement with faculty, peer groups, or student organizations. Research continues to
support the notion that faculty interaction is an important avenue of a sense of
belongingness as well as academic and psychosocial development (Terenzini & Wright, 1987;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978) and furthermore that positive faculty-student interaction has a
positive correlation with students developing in broad and diverse manners including
competence, autonomy, interdependence, identity, purpose, values, maturity and integrity
(Erwin & Love, 1989; Chickering, 1969, 1993; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Org & Brasskamp,
1988; Stakenas, 1972). This research also supports the notion that such faculty interaction is
quite significant and meaningful outside the classroom instruction format.
Although faculty-student interaction is often looked at largely in terms of academic
development or cognitive development, this research tends to support broadening the
impact to include psychosocial development, including pro-social character development.
As illustrated in this research analysis, faculty-student interactions have a significant
predictive relationship with college student pro-social character self-ratings as well as other
collegiate measures. The table with the results of the analysis of the blocks of variables
relating to faculty-student interactions demonstrates the strong predictive relationship these
blocks of variables have with each of the character traits along with other collegiate
outcomes (p. 265). However, it is well to realize that the character self-ratings represent a
broad cross-section of character and one would expect that the range of variables would not
impact each character self-rating in the same way or to the same degree. Individual faculty-
student interaction variables had a stronger predictive relationship with achievement-
oriented character traits and other collegiate outcomes, than compassionate self-concept and
social character traits. However, faculty-student interaction variables had a predictive
relationship with student pro-social character. It is again helpful to look at an overview of
the character self-ratings in four useful groupings: achievement-oriented, compassionate self-
concept, social, and other collegiate outcomes.
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more achievement-oriented,
including achievement orientation- courage, creativity, dependability, drive-to-achieve,
leadership ability, self-confidence (intelligence), the block of faculty-student interactions for
entering first-year students for the previous year and related goals and values entering college
had a significant predictive relationship with three of the achievement-oriented character
self-ratings including courage, drive-to-achieve, and leadership ability. Both the individual
variables related to faculty-student interactions “talking with teachers/faculty outside of
class” as hours per week during the year prior to entering college, and goal of
“communicating regularly with professors” often had a strong relationship with
achievement-oriented character ratings.
In respect to college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by the same third-year college students, the block had a significant predictive
relationship on all of the achievement-oriented character self-ratings. Some of the strongest
predictive individual variables with significance were help in achieving professional goals,
talking with faculty outside of class, (hrs per wk), and to a lesser degree “emotional support
and encouragement”, showing respect, and “advice/guidance about education program.” It
may be well that despite the fact that colleges and universities have trained professionals in
these areas, faculty are often the first individuals students turn to in these situations,
particularly with students living off campus or non-traditional students. Colleges would do
well to help give some modest training to faculty in both of these areas and even offer some
training in the best way to make a referral to the other professionals, areas that are not areas
of training and expertise of faculty. Although most colleges have trained personnel in
academic guidance and counseling, faculty are often the front-line individuals students see
first. Offering faculty occasional workshops in academic guidance would be helpful for both
faculty and students. The same is true for counseling; offering faculty an invitation to the
basic workshops or seminars that are offered of resident life staff would help faculty offer
basic support to students, know how and to whom to make counseling referrals for students,
as well as how to recognize a student who has more serious emotional needs and help insure
that they see a trained professional.
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more compassionate self-
concept, (including compassionate self-concept- altruism, compassion, empathy, forgiveness,
generosity, gratefulness, helpfulness, kindness, and patience), and faculty-student
interactions, the block of activities, goals, and values having to do with the year prior to
entering college and related goals and values entering college had a significant predictive
relationship with all but one of the character self-ratings. The strongest individual variable
related to faculty-student interactions was goal of “communicating regularly with professors”
in incoming first-year students on the SIF2000, followed by “talking with teachers outside of
class” as hours per week during the year prior to entering college.
The block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by third-year students had a significant predictive relationship in every character
self-rating related to compassionate self-concept. The strongest individual variables with
significance were “encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters,” as well as time
spent “talking with faculty outside of class” (hrs per wk), followed by emotional support
and encouragement, advice and guidance about educational program, opportunities to
discuss the purpose/meaning of life, and intellectual challenge and stimulation. It is again
noteworthy, that there is a predictive relationship with pro-social character development and
“encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters” and opportunities to discuss the
purpose/meaning of life. Students for the most part seem to respond positively to the
opportunity to have deeper level discussion about the meaning of life and religious/spiritual
matters. It is important to note that this is different than attending a lecture on these topics
rather the opportunity to discuss such topics. Many faculty at state institutions or faculty
who do not feel comfortable on these topics may want to find ways to better facilitate
discussions on such topics while remaining neutral and honoring the diverse backgrounds
and beliefs of a diverse student body. Colleges and universities may also want to help
facilitate faculty members’ abilities in these areas by offering occasional workshops or
seminars that help faculty improve in these skills.
Concerning the overall group of character qualities that are more social in nature, (including
cooperativeness, loyalty, open-mindedness, respectfulness, humility, self-awareness, self-
confidence (social), self-understanding, and understanding of others), and the block of
activities for incoming first-year student’s prior year activities and related goals and values
entering college, had a significant predictive relationship with all but one of the character
self-ratings. Both the individual variables the goal of “communicating regularly with
professors” and “talking with teachers outside of class” as hours per week during the year
prior to entering college had a significant predictive relationship with most social character
self-ratings.
In respect to the block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-
interactions as reported by third-year students, there was a significant predictive relationship
with each of the social character self-ratings. Some of the strongest individual variables with
significance were with time spent with faculty outside of class, encouragement to discuss
religious/spiritual matters, and help in achieving professional goals.
In respect to other collegiate outcomes, (including emotional health, physical health,
spirituality, religiousness, satisfaction with opportunity for religious/spiritual reflection,
satisfaction with sense of community, satisfaction with interaction with faculty, satisfaction
with relevance of coursework, and satisfaction with overall college experience, the areas vary
considerably and so are best considered on their own. However, some general remarks are
in order. In terms of goals and values, entering first-year students, the block had a
significant predictive relationship with most of the self-ratings. The strongest individual
variable with these set of characteristics was overwhelmingly the goal of “communicating
regularly with professors” in incoming first-year students on the SIF2000 which had a strong
positive impact on most all of the self-ratings. It is well to note that good relationships with
teachers in the year prior to entering college, which in most though not all cases is high
school, who also make themselves available outside the classroom makes for positive
expectations for relationships and experiences with college faculty, and demonstrates a
strong impact on shaping expectations for much of college life.
The block of college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by the same college students in the spring of their third year of college had a
significant predictive relationship with all of the ratings under other collegiate outcomes.
Some of the most predictive individual variables with positive correlation were a help in
achieving professional goals, encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters, talking
with professors outside of class: (hrs per wk), and advice and guidance about educational
program.
In sum, in terms of the block of activities related to faculty-student interaction in the year
prior to entering college and related goals and values of entering first-year students there is a
significant predictive relationship of faculty-student interaction on character self-ratings
including achievement-oriented character, compassionate self-concept character, social
character traits, as well as other collegiate outcomes. The strongest individual variables with
these set of characteristics was overwhelmingly the goal of “communicating regularly with
professors” in incoming first-year students on the SIF2000. Therefore one of the best things
that can be done to help students have good relationships with professors and have a good
overall college experience is to encourage them to set a goal of communicating regularly with
their professors. It is also well to note that good relationships with teachers in the year prior
to entering college, (which in most, though not all, cases is high school), who also make
themselves available outside the classroom makes for positive expectations for relationships
and experiences with college faculty.
In respect to college goals, values and activities related to faculty-student-interactions as
reported by third-year college students, this block had a significant predictive relationship
with all of the self-ratings including achievement-oriented character, compassionate self-
concept character, social character traits, as well as other collegiate outcomes. Some of the
strongest individual variables with significance were a number of factors including help in
achieving professional goals, talking with faculty outside of class, advice and guidance about
educational program, encouragement to discuss religious/spiritual matters, emotional
support and encouragement, showing respect, and intellectual challenge and stimulation.
Among the strongest variables related to faculty-student interactions was “talking with
teachers/faculty outside of class” as hours per week during the year prior to entering college.
It is well to note that the latter question does not specify communicating with faculty about
class subjects and may include faculty interactions about other matters including college
clubs and groups. Therefore one of the best things that can be done to help students have
good relationships with professors and have a good overall college experience is not only to
encourage them to set a goal of communicating regularly with their professors, but also to
avail themselves of opportunities to communicate with professors outside the classroom,
which may include not only office appointments with professors to discuss class
performance and projects, but also to join groups where faculty are advisors and be able to
spend time with faculty in that manner. Once again, “emotional support and
encouragement” and “advice/guidance about education program” had a predictive
relationship with a broad range of pro-social character as well as other collegiate outcomes.
It may be that despite the fact that colleges and universities have trained professionals in
these areas, faculty are often the first individuals students turn to in these situations,
particularly with students living off campus or non-traditional students. Colleges would do
well to help give some modest training to faculty in both of these areas and even offer some
training in the best way to make a referral to the other professionals, areas that are not areas
of training and expertise of faculty. Although most colleges have trained personnel in
academic guidance and counseling, faculty are often the front-line individuals students see
first. Offering faculty occasional workshops in academic guidance would be helpful for both
faculty and students. The same is true for counseling; offering faculty an invitation to the
basic workshops or seminars that are offered of resident life staff would help faculty offer
basic support to students, know how and to whom to make counseling referrals for students,
as well as how to recognize a student who has more serious emotional needs and help insure
that they see a trained professional. It is again noteworthy, that there is a predictive
relationship with pro-social character development and “encouragement to discuss
religious/spiritual matters” and opportunities to discuss the purpose/meaning of life.
Students for the most part seem to respond positively to the opportunity to have deeper
level discussion about the meaning of life and religious/spiritual matters. It is important to
note that this is different than attending a lecture on these topics rather the opportunity to
discuss such topics. Many faculty at state institutions or faculty who do not feel comfortable
on these topics may want to find ways to better facilitate discussions on such topics while
remaining neutral and honoring the diverse backgrounds and beliefs of a diverse student
body. Colleges and universities may also want to help facilitate faculty members’ abilities in
these areas by offering occasional workshops or seminars that help faculty improve in these
skills.
It is also well to note faculty live busy lives often pressured to achieve academic research,
submit professional articles, lecture in class, as well as grade student papers, projects and
labs, and therefore their time is often limited. However, the time they spend with students
outside of class whether counseling them in terms of academic programs, or class lectures,
or mentoring them in co-curricular activities, has a strong and enduring impact on students’
lives in fostering a broad range of pro-social character qualities.
In an educational environment in which educational models are increasingly mirroring
business models with metrics emphasizing productivity and efficiency, it is well to remember
that this set of metrics revealed in this research underscores the broad positive impact of
quality faculty-student interactions both in the classroom as well as beyond classroom in
influencing student’s lives in a positive and enduring manner.
These activities, goals, and values related to faculty-student interactions provide avenues of
pro-social character development that are positive for students as well as the academic
community, the local community, as well as society at large. It is also hoped that colleges
can find a useful and productive common denominator in talking about character that is
deeper and more profound than simply the admonitions to not participate in unethical
conduct, but embraces positive pro-social character that can better support and encourage
students to embrace character that might help them lead positive and productive lives that
are engaged in the local and global community. The study will hopefully add important
understandings concerning the holistic development of college student in terms of pro-social
character development, as well as focus on what colleges could do to create an environment
that would support and facilitate the development and reinforcement of pro-social values
and character in college students, who in the truest sense hold in their hands the seeds of the
future of our communities and the global community.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Aristotle (1953) The Nicomachean Ethics. J. A. K. Thomson. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation
in higher education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1997). Liberal education and democracy: The case for pragmatism. In Orrill,
R. (Ed.) Education and democracy: Re-imagining liberal learning in America. (pp. 207-
224). New York: The College Board.
Astin, A. (2003). Methodology. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute,
University of California Los Angeles.
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Astin, A. and Astin, H. (2003). Spirituality in higher education: A national study of
college student’s search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: Higher
Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Astin, A. and Astin, H. (2003). The development of the college students’ beliefs and values survey
CSBV Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California Los Angeles.
Astin, A. & Dey, E.L. (1996). Causal analytical modeling via blocked regression analysis
(CAMBRA): An introduction with examples. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Astin, A. & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges and
Universities. Revised Edition. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
Astin, A. and Sax, L. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263.
Astin, A., Sax, L., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 187-202.
Astin, A. , Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., and Yee, J. A. (2000). How service
learning affects students. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute,
University of California Los Angeles.
Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., and Yee, J. A. (2005). Post-college civic engagement
among graduates. Report Number 2. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research
Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Batchelder, T.H. & Root, S.. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate
academic learning and service: Cognitive, pro-social cognitive, and identity
outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.
Baxter Magolda, M., & Terenzini, P.T. (1999). Learning and teaching in the 21st century:
Trends and implications for practice. In C.S. Johnson and H.E. Cheatham
(Eds.), Higher education trends for the next century: A research agenda for student success.,
Washington: American College Personnel Association.
Berger, Joseph B., and Jeffery F. Milem. “The Impact of community service involvement on three
measures of undergraduate self-concept.” NASPA 40, no.1 (Fall 2002): 85-103.
Berkowitz, M.W., & Fekula, M.J. (1999). Fostering character on college campuses. About
Campus, 4(5), 17-22.
Blatt, M. & Kohlberg, L. (1975) The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children's
level of moral development. Journal of Moral Education, 4(2), pp. 129-161.
Bollen, K. A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Boss, J. (1994). The effect of community service work on the moral development of
college ethics students. Journal of Moral Education 23, 183-98.
Boyd, D.R. (1976) Education toward principled moral judgment: An analysis of an experimental course
in undergraduate moral education applying Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development.
Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
Boyd, D.R. (1980) The condition of sophomoritis and its educational cure. Journal of Moral
Education, 10(l), pp. 24-39.
Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221-239.
Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M.A., & Hudson, M. (2004) The Measure of Service Learning:
Research Scales to Assess Student Experiences. American Psychological Association.
Washington, D.C.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self report data really that bad? In Charles E.
Lance and Robert J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths
and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social
sciences (pp309-335). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W. (1974). The impact of various college environments on personality
development. Journal of the American College Health Association, 23, 82-94
Chickering, A.W. (1975). Commuting versus resident students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W. (1981). The modern American college: Responding to the new realities diverse
students and a changing society . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W. (2006). Strengthening spirituality and civic engagement in higher
education. Journal of College & Character Vol. VIII, No. 1.
Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z. (1999). Development and Adaptations of the Seven
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for
Teaching and learning, Volume 1999, Issue 80 , Pages 75 - 81
Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W. & O’Conner, J. (1996). The university learning center: A driving force
for collaboration. About Campus. 1, 16-21.
Chickering, A.W. (1976) Developmental change as a major outcome, in: M. T. Keeton
(Ed.) Experimental Learning, 62-107, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chong-ho Yu, “Reliability of self-reported data “HTTP://WWW.CREATIVE-
WISDOM.COM/TEACHING/WBI/MEMORY.SHTML retrieved 11/25/2010.
Colby, A.L., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J. & Libermann, M. (1983) A longitudinal study of moral
judgment, SRCD Monograph, 48(1-2), pp. 33-42.
Cohen, J., & Kinsey, D. (1994). “Doing good” and scholarship: A service learning study.
Journalism Educator, 48, 4-14.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Davis, T.M. & Murrell, P.H. (1993). A structural model of perceived academic, personal,
and vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher
Education, 34, 267-290.
Dewey, John (1915). Education and society, Child and curriculum. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1990.
Dewey, J. (1939) Theory of Valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New
York: The Free Press.
Dey, E.L. (1997). Working with low response rates: The efficacy of weighting
adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38, 215-227.
Erwin, T. & Love, W. (1989). Selected environmental factors in student development.
NASPA Journal, 17, 19-24.
Evans, N.J. (1996). Theories of student development. In S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodard,
Jr., (Eds.), Student services: A Handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., & Giles, Jr., D.E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., & Giles, Jr., D.E., &Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on
college students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5-15.
Feldman, K.A. & Newcomb, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on students. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Seventh
edition. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1991) The tensions between education and development. Journal of Moral
Education, 20(2), 113-125
Giles, D.E. & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on
student’s personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-
339.
Giles, Jr., D.E. & Eyler, J. (1998). A service learning research agenda for the next five
years. In R. A. Rhoads and J. P. F. Howard (Eds.), Academic service learning: A
pedagogy of action and reflection. New directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Giles, D.E. Honnet, E., & Migliore, S. (Eds). (1991). Research agenda for combining service
and learning in the 1990’s. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and
Experiential Education.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In A different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gutherie, V. (1997). Cognitive foundations of ethical development. New Directions for
Student Services. Volume 1997, Issue 77 , Pages 23 – 44
Haan, N. (1985) Processes of moral development: cognitive social disequilibrium?
Developmental Psychology, 21, 996-1006.
Heller, J. (1989) Offering moral education. Streamlined Seminar, 8, 1-8.
Hesser, G. (1995). Faculty assessment of student learning: Outcomes attributed to
service-learning and evidence of changes in faculty attitudes about experiential
education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 33-42.
Hill PC & Hood RW (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, Ala. : Religious Education
Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development; Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenney, T.J.(2010). The holistic development of college students: psychosocial and emotional
development of college students in relation to pro-social character development. (Doctoral
dissertation, Purdue University). Proquest.
Kendall, J. (1991). Principles of good practice in combining service and learning. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 27, 93-97.
Kohlberg, L. (1964) Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook for socialization and research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1971) The Philosophy of moral education (New York, Harper & Row).
Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. New York: Harper & Row.
Kuh, G.D., Vesper, N., Connolly, M.R., & Pace, C.R. (1997). College Student’s Experiences
Questionnaire: Revised norms for the 3rd edition, 1997. Bloomington, Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Kuh, G. (2000). Do environments matter? A comparative analysis of the impression of
different types of colleges and universities on character. Journal of College and
Character.
Kuh, G.D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with
student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education,
66,123-155.
Kuh, G.D., & P.G. Love (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. Braxton
(Ed.), Rethinking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student
retention. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.S., Whift, E.J., & Associates (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Larsen, C. & Martin, B. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of a collegiate
character education program. Collegiate Character Education, 13, 1-14.
Laud, L., (1997). Moral education in America: 1600s-1800s. Journal of Education, vol.179
issue 2.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Margolis, J. (1978) Does Kohlberg have a valid theory of moral development? In: M.
Lipman & A.M. Sharp (Eds) Growing up with Philosophy. Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Markus, G.B., Howard, J.P.F., & King, D.C. (1993). Integrating community service and
classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 410-419.
Martin, L.M. (2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial outcomes in
students. Journal of College Student Development. 41, 292-301.
Myers-Lipton, S. (1994). The effect of service-learning on college student’s attitudes
toward civic responsibility, international understanding, and racial prejudice.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Nie, N. and Hillygus, D. (2001). Education and democratic citizenship. In Ravitch, D.
and Viteritti, J. (Eds.). Making good citizens: Education and civil society (pp. 30-57).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nucci, L. (1997). “Moral development and character formation.” In Walberg, H. J. &
Haertel, G. D. Psychology and educational practice. Berkeley: MacCarchan. p. 127-157.
Nucci, L. (1985) Future direction in research on children's moral reasoning and moral
education. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling. April, 272-282.
Olejink, S.F. (1984). Planning educational research: Determining the necessary sample
size. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 40-48.
O’Brien, E.M. (1993). Outside the classroom: Students as employees, volunteers and
interns. Research Briefs, 4, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from 20 years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rest, J.R. (1984). Research on moral development: implications for training counseling
psychologists, The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 19-29.
Rest, J.R. (1988) Why does college promote development in moral judgement? Journal of
Moral Education, 17,183-94.
Rest, J.R. (1990) Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Center for the Study of
Ethical Development, University of Minnesota.
Rhoads, R.A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the
caring self. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sax, L.J. & Astin, A. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates.
Educational Record, 78, 25-32.
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and
cognitive neuroscience. American Psychology, 54, 182-203
Schneider, M.K. (1998). Models of good practice for service-learning programs. AAHE
Bulletin, 50, 9-12.
Siegel, S. & Rockwood, V. (1993). Democratic education, student empowerment, and
community service: Theory and practice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26, 65-
70.
Tinto, V . (1975) . Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review
of Educational Research 45:89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Second
Edition. University of Chicago Press.
Vogelgesang, L.J. & Astin, A. (2000) Comparing the effects of community service learning.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning; v7 p25-34.
Vogelgesang, L.J. & Astin, A. (2005) Research report: POST-COLLEGE civic engagement among
graduates. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Walker, L. (1986) Experiential and cognitive sources of moral development in adulthood.
Human Development, 29, pp. 113-124.
Winston, R.B. & Miller, T.K. (1987). The student development task and lifestyle inventory manual.
Athens, Georgia: Student Development Associates.
