Problem Statement:

Purpose:

The aim of this project is to provide recommendations to increase student involvement

and engagement in Peer-Facilitated Educational Workshops and the Leadership Development

Certificate Program held by the Center for Leadership Development and Campus Connections at

Montclair State University. College is a time for growth and development. Students are paying

thousands of dollars for learning both in and outside the classroom. From my experience, I have

seen people put less of a focus on development outside the classroom (co-curricular). We want to

avoid sending people out into the world without acquiring skills, such as how to write a resume

and how to manage their stress. One purpose of the LDCC is to help students hone these

essential skills. These skills may seem like common knowledge, however these are skills that

must be developed and don’t come easily to most people. We want to avoid having people

graduate from MSU and feel as though they did not grow as a person and felt uninvolved on

campus.

What We Know:

There are 15,885 undergraduate students and 4,137 graduate students at Montclair State

University, totaling to approximately 20,022 students. According to attendance records for the

2014-2015 academic year, 3,300 students attended Peer-Facilitated Educational Workshops. This

includes students that are required to attend workshops, which are students in fraternities and

sororities. The number of students who attended workshops consist of 17% of the student

population. In regards to the Leadership Development Certificate Program for the 2014-2015

academic year, 29 people applied for the program and 15 people completed the first year of the

program.

1

Next Steps:

In order to develop an intervention to increase student involvement and engagement in

workshops and the certificate program offered by the LDCC, I will be examining trends in what

may have influenced student involvement and what motivates students to be involved. My focus

will be on workshop type (professional vs. personal), time workshops are offered, and how

events were marketed. I will also be examining student self-reports on what motivates them to be

involved with the LDCC.

2

Organizational Analysis:

General Information:

The objective of the Center for Leadership Development and Campus Connections office

is to help MSU students improve their leadership skills, enhance their professional and social

skills, and increase student involvement on campus. “We develop leaders today, while preparing

them for tomorrow” is the motto of the office. The LDCC is located in the Student Center room

104.

Services:

Peer-Facilitated Educational Workshops: These workshops are created and

presented by student employees on a variety of personal/professional topics, such as

how to manage stress, tips on public speaking, resume building, etc.

The Co-Curricular Leadership Development Certificate Program: The purpose

of this program is to provide students with leadership development experience,

making them more marketable when searching for jobs on and off campus.

Roundtable Discussions: This is offered to student leaders on campus to discuss

challenges in their organizations. These discussions provide students with the

opportunity to brainstorm solutions together.

Leadership and Involvement Information Tables: Provides students with

information about organizations and resources on campus to promote involvement.

One-on-One Involvement Advising: Students are assisted with the process of

getting involved on campus based on their interests, career goals, past experiences,

and major.

3

Nature of Ownership:

Jillian Ploskonka is the Coordinator of Campus Connections and Leadership Programs.

She is responsible for organizing the efforts of student employees to deliver the services of the

LDCC.

Student Employees:

The positions listed below are MSU student employment opportunities at the LDCC.

Students who are interested in pursuing a career in Student Affairs, I/O Psychology, Business,

Communications, Education, and Leadership Development are encouraged to apply for these

positions.

Peer Leadership Presenter (Undergrad & Grad): Develops and presents peer

educational workshops.

Graduate Student Assistant: Runs the Leadership Development Certificate Program,

supervises undergraduate student employees, helps present peer educational workshops.

One on One Involvement Specialist (UG): The main focus of this position is to get

MSU students involved using creative strategies.

Marketing Internship (UG & Grad): Coordinates marketing efforts by making flyers,

utilizing social media, and getting the word out about services offered by the LDCC.

Graphic Design Internship (UG & Grad): Develops online brochures and responsible

for website design.

Student Leadership Intern (UG): Presents and facilitates peer educational programs,

along with assisting in marketing efforts.

4

Student Office Assistant (UG): Completes administrative tasks, such as filing and

hanging up flyers. This person also assists in the walk-in service the LDCC has for

students seeking advisement.

Trends:

Number of Programs and Workshops the LDCC held:

Academic Year Number of Programs Percent Increase from Previous

Year

2011-2012 22 -

2012-2013 104 79%

2013-2014 113 8%

2014-2015 202 44%

The number of programs held by the LDCC has been increasing over the past four years.

Overall Program Attendance:

Academic Year Student Attendance Percent Increase from Previous

Year

2011-2012 376 -

2012-2013 3,317 89%

2013-2014 4,146 25%

2014-2015 5,136 24%

Program attendance has been increasing over the past four years.

5

Diagnosis

Information:

The LDCC has been growing in regard to programs and attendance since 2011.

Therefore, the aim of the LDCC is to continue to increase attendance, along with quality and

quantity of programs. Increases in programs and attendance needs to be demonstrated each

academic year in order for the LDCC to receive the appropriate amount of funding needed to

function. The LDCC has been previously successful in doing this. The purpose of the current

project is to further examine program trends and attendance to continue to facilitate growth and

to motivate more students to become involved with the LDCC.

Collection and Analysis:

In order to increase student involvement, we have to understand why students attend

programs. Based on this information, programs can be better suited towards the needs of

students at MSU. OrgSync was used to gather this information. OrgSync is an online platform

that allows students to get involved on campus. Students can use OrgSync to search for on-

campus job opportunities, events, programs, workshops, select leadership positions, and connect

with campus offices and departments. The LDCC uses this online platform to track student

attendance at programs and involvement with the leadership development certificate program.

For every program/workshop that is held, feedback is collected from all attendees using

OrgSync. Students are sent a survey with the following questions:

How beneficial was this program/workshop/event for your personal and/or

professional development?

Overall, how would you rate your experience with this program/workshop/event?

Please rate the effectiveness of the program/workshop/event.

Did the program/workshop/event meet your expectations?

6

How did you hear about this program/workshop/event?

Why did you attend this program/workshop/event?

Through OrgSync, a survey was sent out to all of those who expressed interest in the

leadership development certificate program within the last year. The survey was sent at the start

of the Fall 2015 semester. Below are the questions that were asked:

Why are you most interested in the Leadership Development Certificate Program?

Please be specific.

What is your availability like for the fall? (roughly) This would be for workshops

and programs you need to attend for the requirements of the program.

What will be your status for the Fall 2015?

Which leadership positions do you currently hold on campus?

How did you hear about this program?

A survey was also sent to students who applied for the LDCP. Below are the questions

that were asked:

What is your status with the certificate program?

Why did you NOT complete the program or its requirements? (your honest

feedback will help us make changes in the future) **Answer only if you did not

complete**

Why did you apply or enroll in the certificate program?

In your own words, what do you think engages students in the workshops offered

by the Center for Leadership Development at Montclair State University? (think

about yourself and your peers)

7

Program/Workshop Feedback: Analysis 1

I used the data from the programs/workshops that were held in the Fall 2015 semester. A

total of 864 student feedback surveys were used in this assessment. First, I examined differences

in ratings between personal and professional workshops/programs. The compare means function

in SPSS was used to compare ratings between professional and personal programming. Table 1

displays the results of this analysis:

Finding: There are no significant differences between ratings for professional and personal

workshops. This indicates that students receive the same level of benefit, effectiveness, overall

experience, and met expectations from both professional and personal workshops. Personal

workshops have slightly higher ratings, but this difference is not statistically significant.

8

Table 1: Professional vs. Personal Program RatingsType Benefit Experience Effectiveness Expectations

Professional Mean 4.4467 4.3660 4.3487 4.2161N 347 347 347 347

Std. Deviation .81134 .84750 .88142 .86149Personal Mean 4.4990 4.4352 4.4449 4.3056

N 517 517 517 517Std. Deviation .76408 .79616 .80896 .81853

Program/Workshop Feedback: Analysis 2

The next analysis I conducted was used to examine if students rated the benefit,

effectiveness, overall experience, and their met expectations based on why they attended

programs/workshops (i.e. Greek requirement, LDCP, interest in topic, etc.). The compare means

function was also used for this analysis. Table 2 displays the results:

Table 2: Program Ratings Grouped by Why Students AttendedWhy Benefit Experience Effectiveness Expectations

Greek Req. Mean 4.4798 4.4170 4.4212 4.3040

N 717 717 717 717

Std. Deviation .77582 .81047 .81261 .81683LDCP Req. Mean 4.4623 4.3208 4.3019 4.0566

N 106 106 106 106Std. Deviation .81853 .87882 1.02511 .92407

Interested in topic Mean 4.5000 4.5556 4.3889 4.0556N 18 18 18 18Std. Deviation .92355 .70479 .84984 1.10997

Not listed Mean 4.2000 4.1000 4.0000 4.1000N 10 10 10 10Std. Deviation 1.03280 .99443 .81650 .73786

Extra Credit Mean 4.6000 4.4000 4.4000 4.4000N 5 5 5 5Std. Deviation .54772 .89443 .54772 .54772

Professor/Supervisor

Mean 5.0000 4.0000 5.0000 4.0000N 1 1 1 1Std. Deviation . . . .

RA Mean 4.6667 4.8333 5.0000 4.6667N 6 6 6 6Std. Deviation .51640 .40825 .00000 .51640

Finding: There are no significant differences in ratings based on why people attended programs.

This indicates that programs are serving students’ needs equally.

9

Marketing:

Table 3 is a frequency table displaying how often students heard information about

programs/workshops through different modes of communication.

Table 3: How Did You Hear?Frequency Percent

OrgSync 684 79.2

Flyer 42 4.9

Leadership Website 21 2.4

Friend 83 9.6

In the loop 10 1.2

MSU Website 3 .3

Red Hawk News 4 .5

Supervisor 9 1.0

Twitter 1 .1

Facebook 7 .8

Total 864 100.0

Finding: OrgSync is the most common mode for how students hear about programs.

10

Why Students Attend Programs/Workshops:

Table 4 is a frequency table that displays how often students attend workshops/programs

to meet a requirement, personal interest in topics, etc.:

Table 4: Why Did You Attend the Program?Frequency Percent

Greek Req. 717 83.0

LDCP Req.106 12.3

Interested in topic18 2.1

Not listed10 1.2

Extra Credit5 .6

Professor/Supervisor1 .1

RA6 .7

Advisor1 .1

Total 864 100.0

Finding: The most common reason why students attend workshops is to meet their Greek

requirements.

11

Time and Attendance:

For this analysis, I recorded the day and time programs were held and how many people

attended. This was done for 53 programs that were held in the Fall 2015 semester. The purpose

of examining this information was to find what days and times have the highest student

attendance at workshops/programs. Table 5 displays this information:

Table 5:

12

On the y-axis of the chart pictured above represents the number of programs/workshops.

The top horizontal label are the categories I used to label attendance (i.e. the first column

represents programs that had under 10 people attend). The bottom x-axis represents the days of

the week programs were held and the colors on the bars indicate the times programs were held.

Findings: Monday at any time appears to be the day with highest attendance, as demonstrated

by the fact that there was not a program held on a Monday that had below 10 people attend.

Monday also had the most programs with 11-20 participants and 21-30 participants. Fridays

appear to be the day with the least amount of attendees, regardless of the time.

Table 5.1 below demonstrates how many programs each day of the week resulted in attendance

of under 10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, and 40+ participants. In regard to time, the time slots that led

to the highest number of participants were: Monday 12:00-2:30, Monday 7:00-10:00, Tuesday

and Wednesday 3:00-4:30, and Thursday 12:00-2:30.

Table 5.1: Number of ProgramsCategorized by # of Participants and Day of the Week

13

Under 10 Participants

11-20 Participants

21-30Participants

31-40Participants

40+Participants

Monday 5 6 4 1Tuesday 4 4 5 1Wednesday 2 2 4 1Thursday 3 3 1Friday 5 1 1

Leadership Development Certificate Program Survey 1 Feedback:

This survey was sent out to anyone who expressed interest in the LDCP. 93 responses to

the survey were received. Below are the results. There are differing totals for each question

because some students did not answer all the survey questions or gave multiple responses to one

question.

Question 1: Why are you most interested in the Leadership Development Certificate Program?

Please be specific.

Table 6:

14

Findings: On the y-axis of the chart above indicates the number of survey responses to this

question. The x-axis are the reasons why students want to become part of the LDCP. For this

question, I coded the responses and categorized them into five categories: improve leadership

skills, professional/personal development, resume building/marketability, get involved on

campus, and requirement for leadership minor. Responses that discussed wanting to improve

leadership skills for a current or future position were categorized under “improve leadership

skills.” Responses that discussed wanting to improve a certain skill, such as public speaking or

social skills, were categorized under “professional/personal development.” Responses that

discussed wanting to add the LDCP to a resume to improve marketability were categorized under

“resume building/marketability.” Responses that discussed wanting to be involved with an

organization on campus were categorized under “get involved on campus.” There was one

person that indicated wanting to join the LDCP because it was required for the leadership minor.

Below is a summary of the percentages of responses for each of the categories:

Improve leadership skills: 57.8%

Professional/personal development: 23.4%

Resume building/marketability: 6.3%

Get involved on campus: 10.9%

Leadership minor requirement: 1.6%

Based on these percentages, it is clear to see students want to become involved with the

LDCP to improve their leadership skills and for professional/personal development.

15

Question 2: What is your availability like for the fall? (Roughly) This would be for workshops

and programs you need to attend for the requirements of the program.

Table 7:

16

Table 8:

Findings: For this questions, I examined students’ availability based on day of the week and

time of the day. Below is a summary of the number of students reporting their availability for

each day of the week. For this question, students were able to put more than one response.

Therefore, there are more responses than participants in the survey.

Monday: 70 students

Tuesday: 74 students

Wednesday: 62 students

Thursday: 71 students

17

Friday: 64 students

Saturday: 37 students

Below is a summary of the number of students reporting their availability based on time of day:

Morning: 60

Afternoon: 68

Evening: 73

These results indicate that the best days to have meetings/programs are Monday,

Tuesday, and Thursday. The best times to have programs are either the afternoon or evening.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this reflects the availability of the 93 students that

took this survey and might not be a completely accurate reflection of all students on campus.

18

Question 3: What will be your status for the Fall 2015?

Table 9:

Findings: These findings indicate that juniors are most interested in this program. Below is a

summary for the percentage of students who indicated what status they were:

Freshmen: 22.2%

Sophomore: 21.1%

Junior: 34.4%

Senior: 13.3%

Graduate Student: 8.9%

19

Question 4: Which leadership positions do you currently hold on campus?

Table 10:

Findings: It is clear to see that there are students in different leadership roles on campus who

are interested in the LDCP. However, half the students who expressed interest in the program do

not hold any leadership positions on campus. This demonstrates that the LDCP is appealing to

anyone on campus, current leaders or not. Below is the percentage of responses:

Admissions Ambassador: 4.1%

No leadership positions: 50%

Office Assistant: 10.2%

Greek: 16.3%

Peer Advocate: 1.0%

Peer Advisor: 1.0%

20

Student Info. Desk Leader: 1.0%

Resident Assistant: 16.1%

EOF Student Leader: 2.0%

Peer Leader: 1.0%

Campus Rec. Leader: 1.0%

Graduate Assistant: 1.0%

Service Assistant: 3.1%

Rec. Board: 2.0%

21

Question 5: How did you hear about this program?

Table 11:

Findings: Based on these results, the three most common ways that students heard about the

LDCP are through email, OrgSync, and the organization fair. Below is a break down by

percentage of how students heard about the LDCP:

Social Media: 2.5%

Email: 32.5%

OrgSync: 20.0%

Organization fair: 20.0%

Annual leadership institute: 2.5%

22

Student: 5.0%

Greek/summer training: 2.5%

Supervisor: 2.5%

Red Hawk Day: 2.5%

Flyer: 5.0%

Info. Desk: 2.5%

Class: 2.5%

23

Leadership Development Certificate Program Survey 2 Feedback:

This survey was sent out to students who applied for the LDCP. 26 students responded to

the survey. Although there were students who indicated that they did not complete the program,

no one responded to the question asking why they did not complete the program (Question 2).

Also, the third question on the survey asking why students applied for the program was very

similar to a question that was asked in the first survey that I analyzed. Therefore, for this survey

I focused on analyzing the last question because it gave valuable information that differed from

the first survey that I examined and most of the respondents of the survey answered the question.

24

Question 5: In your own words, what do you think engages students in the workshops offered

by the Center for Leadership Development at Montclair State University? (think about yourself

and your peers)

Table 12:

25

Findings: For this question, I coded students’ responses into the following categories:

networking opportunities, free, accessible, food, games, interesting speakers, interactive, gain

leadership experience, important/useful information, improve professional/personal skills, get

involved on campus. These are reasons students listed regarding what they think engages

students on campus. Based on the results, it appears that students think that obtaining

important/valuable information engages students the most, followed by networking opportunities

and gaining leadership experience. Below is the percentage of responses for each of the

categories:

Networking opportunities: 11.1%

Free: 7.4%

Accessible: 3.7%

Food: 7.4%

Games: 3.7%

Interesting speakers: 7.4%

Interactive: 7.4%

Gain leadership experience: 11.1%

Important/useful information: 29.6%

Improve professional/personal skills: 7.4%

Getting involved on campus: 3.7%

26

Best Practices: Literature Review

Purpose:

The purpose of this literature review is to find previous research on student involvement

and engagement to further enhance student involvement with the LDCC and LDCP. Based on

my analysis, it was clear to see that students who are already involved on campus are more likely

to attend programs and workshop held by the LDCC compared to students not involved on

campus. Therefore, I will be examining how to engage students who are not involved on campus

to become involved.

Psychological Conditions for Engagement:

Kahn (1990) defined engagement as “harnessing oneself to their work”. The degree to

which one harnesses oneself is contingent upon environmental factors. Kahn (1990) proposed

that when one is working, they are fulfilling a role. The more a person brings themselves into

the role, the higher performance, satisfaction, and commitment a person will experience.

“Bringing themselves” can be described as one’s level of energy, passion, and interest that a

person uses or exerts towards a particular action.

Kahn (1990) found that there are three basic conditions an organization (or a school)

needs to provide in order for people to feel engaged: meaningfulness, safety, and availability.

Meaningfulness is the degree to which one is contributing or making an impact on their

environment. Safety is the degree to which one feels that they can be themselves in their work

environment without be ridiculed or judged. Availability is the degree to which one feels that

they have the resources to be engaged in their environment.

These three conditions can be contributing factors to the lack of motivation and

engagement amongst students. Students may not be bringing themselves into the student role

because they don’t feel meaning, safety, or availability of resources. Therefore, to motivate and

27

promote engagement in students, the three conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability

must be fulfilled. Figure 1 demonstrates Khan’s theory applied to student motivation and

engagement:

Figure 1:

What is Student Engagement?

Along with other constructs and concepts in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, there

is no one universal definition for engagement. Kahu (2013) classified the different definitions of

engagement into four perspectives: student/institution behavior, psychosocial process,

sociopolitical context, and process/outcome. Engagement as behavior focuses on what

institutions do to engage students and what students do to be engaged. Engagement as a

psychosocial process focuses on behavior, along with the cognitive and affective dimensions of

an individual. Sociopolitical context hones in on the culture of the institution. The

process/outcome or the “holistic approach” encompasses the above three perspectives.

Engagement is the process of the institution and results in the outcome of students devoting time

and effort (Kahu, 2013).

For the purposes of the current project, I am going to use Kahu’s behavior classification

of engagement. Kuh’s (2009) definition exemplifies this perspective and is formally defined as

28

Meaningfulness:

Does what I do matter?

Safety:

Can I express myself freely?

Availability:

Do I have the resources to be successful?

Student Engagement:

How much of myself am I putting in to being a college student?

“the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes

of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities.” This

definition is utilized by the National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) in Northern

America (Vuori, 2014).

Why is Student Engagement Important?

Students face many challenges throughout their collegiate careers, such as choosing their

academic and career paths, balancing their courses, work, family obligations, social life, and

financial burdens. In regard to choosing their academic and career path, Arum (2016) found that

students often choose pathways with the least amount of academic challenges and minimum

engagement. Arum (2016) studied a cohort of students throughout their four years of college at

twelve different universities in the U.S. Students’ academic and social experiences were

examined, along with their performance on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (measures

critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing ability).

Arum (2016) reported minimal improvement in the CLA from the time students started

college to the time they graduated and attributed this to students not getting the most of their

college experience. An interesting finding of this study was that there was more variation

between students within the same college rather than across colleges. This demonstrates that

what students do in college can be even more important than what college they go to (Arum,

2016).

Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, and Gonyea (2008) examined first-year college students’

GPAs and return rate for their second year in relation to engagement. Data was collected from

students from eighteen different universities in the U.S. The authors found that the students who

spent more time studying and involved in complementary co-curricular activities were more

29

likely to perform better academically, to be more satisfied, and to persist and graduate (Kuh et

al., 2008).

Participation in co-curricular activities has been shown to positively impact students’

persistence to degree. Hanks and Eckland (1976) reported that involvement in co-curricular

activities influences persistence to degree in the following ways: involvement psychologically

connects students to the campus and involvement helps students develop professional and

personal competencies that help them achieve success. Research has demonstrated that

involvement in co-curricular activities is beneficial to all students, however, students who have

lower commitment to their institutions and have low academic goals tend to benefit the most

from co-curricular activities (Pascarella and Chapman, 1983 and Pascarella and Terenzini, 1979).

These findings demonstrate the importance of encouraging students who are not involved on

campus to become involved.

What are the Challenges of Student Engagement?

One challenge of promoting student engagement is making students aware of the

resources available on campus. In a pilot study conducted at Illinois State University, Achen

(2015) examined the use of social media in engaging students in activities held by the

university’s recreation center. Achen (2015) surveyed 257 undergraduate students and found

that the majority of the students did have Facebook and Twitter accounts, but were unwilling to

connect with the recreation center through social media. This indicates that although students

are on social media, it still might not be the best way to market resources on campus. Therefore,

marketing is a significant challenge to student engagement.

Kuh (2007) examined students’ expectations going into college regarding involvement on

campus. It was found that between 40 percent and 50 percent of first-year students did not take

30

advantage of career planning, financial advising, or academic tutoring services. In addition, 32

percent of the first year students surveyed that were expecting to be involved on campus did not

participate in any co-curricular activities. Lack of understanding between students’ expectations

and their actually behavior is another challenge to student engagement. 

Another challenge to student engagement is serving different types of students (e.g.

student athletes, Greek organization members, transfer students, commuters, residents, first-

generation students, international students, and minority students). This is a challenge because

the needs of students differ. For example, Kuh et al. (2006) discussed how Greek students and

student athletes are more likely to be engaged compared to transfer students and first-generation

college students. Differences in students’ characteristics and needs are important to keep in

mind when trying to promote engagement.

As mentioned above, one aspect that influences students' growth and learning is whether

or not they live on campus (residents) or live off campus (commuters). All students face the

same challenges in college of engaging in the classroom, performing well academically, and

"persisting to degree".  However, a student's motivation to rise to these challenges can differ

depending on if they are a resident or commuter student.  Using results from the 2001 National

Student Engagement survey, Kuh, Gonyea, and Palmer (2001) found that commuter students

tend to have less contact with their professors and do not take full advantage of campus

resources, such as campus organizations. Likewise, Alfano and Edulgee (2013) concluded from

their study of a private college that approximately 66% of commuter students did not engage in

any on-campus activities, while 21% of resident students did not engage in on-campus activities

in a given semester  (data from Fall 2011 semester).

31

In addition, the socioeconomic status of students can be a challenge to student

engagement. MSU has taken great interest in helping students who may be experiencing food

insecurity. In a recent survey that was distributed on campus, over half the students who

responded (170 total responses) indicated that they cannot obtain food for themselves or that they

know someone on campus struggling with food insecurity (Albanese, Kogut, Kucuk,

McDermott, and Van Clef, 2016). Food insecurity is another challenge to student engagement

because students don’t have basic necessities to survive, which limits the amount of co-curricular

activities that they can focus on.

How can Student Engagement be Improved?

In a study conducted by Kuh, Nelson, and Umbach (2004), the authors found that when

institutions place a strong emphasis on certain activities, students were more likely to engage in

them. This indicates that is not only important on the part of the student to devote time and

effort in their own engagement, it is also the responsibility of faculty and staff to inform students

of the importance of participating in activities to enhance personal and professional

development.

In a literature review conducted by Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006), the

authors discussed how interactions with faculty and peer interactions influenced students’

involvement and engagement on campus. These interactions motivate students to dedicate more

time and energy to professional and personal development activities. In addition, interactions

with faculty and peers exposes students to diverse experiences, which fosters learning. These

findings emphasize the importance of interactions both inside and outside the classroom.

Helping new students adjust to the campus is another way to improve engagement. In

2005, the National Survey for Student Engagement reported that first-year students who attended

32

an institution-sponsored orientation were more likely to participate in educational enrichment

activities, perceive the campus environment as supportive, reported greater developmental gains

in their first year of college, and were more satisfied with their overall college experience (Kuh

et al., 2006). In 2005, the NSSE also emphasized the importance of first-year seminars and

reported that students who experienced first-year seminars benefited in the following ways:

more interaction with faculty, greater utilization of campus resources, were more challenged

academically, and perceived the campus environment as supportive (Kuh et al., 2006).

Kuh et al. (2006) identified Student Success Initiatives as another way to foster

engagement on campus. These initiatives can focus on a variety of campus resources and help

with both academic development and skill development (e.g. time management, goal-setting).

Student Success Initiatives can be used by institutions to show students the importance of

personal and professional development.

The national organization dedicated to campus engagement, Campus Compact,

emphasized the importance of service learning and “active and collaborative learning” in

predicting self-reported learning gains and GPA. Students report high levels of learning when

engaged in projects dedicated to helping the campus community. These projects can be assigned

through a course, such as freshmen seminar. Campus Compact is based on the premise that civic

engagement can foster students’ campus engagement.

In a literature review conducted by Taylor and Parsons (2011), the following elements

were identified as being important for student engagement: stimulating activities, institution

transparency, and relevant information. Students need to view what the campus has to offer as

being applicable to their lives and challenging their current ways of thinking. A culture based on

33

learning and facilitating interactions between students and faculty fosters engagement (Taylor et

al., 2011).

Goal-setting and contingency planning are other tools that can be utilized to promote

student engagement. Locke and Latham’s Goal-Setting Theory has been greatly supported by

research findings throughout the years. Setting goals influences one’s choice, effort, and

persistence for a course of action. Goal-setting can be used to motivate students. If students set

goals for their performance and engagement in college, both performance and engagement are

likely to be increased. Goal-setting can be a tool used to offset impulsiveness. If one has a

specific goal they are striving for, they may be more likely to not give in to instant gratification.

Golliwitzer and Oettingen (2011) acknowledge the importance of goal type and

commitment to a goal and have provided a method in order to sustain one’s persistence towards

achieving a goal. This method involves making plans consisting of goal intentions and

implementation intentions. Goal intentions are having structured goals with a clear desired

outcome. Implementation intentions are situation based and are used to overcome obstacles that

may prevent one from completing the goal (Golliwitzer et al., 2011).

Constructing implementation plans can aid students in their goals and enhance the goals

that they are striving for. For example, a student’s goal might be to only miss two classes in a

given semester. The positive outcome for achieving this goal would be the opportunity to

engage in the majority of the class and to benefit from the information provided in class.

However, obstacles such as inclement weather and off-campus jobs can get in the way of

attending every class. The student can make an implementation plan similar to this: “If I am

unable to go to class because of bad weather, I will then email my professor and contact

classmates to ensure that I have gathered all of the information presented in class”.

34

Conclusion:

Based on my review of the literature, below are common factors that influence student

engagement in college:

Perceived institution commitment to students.

Messages institution communicates to students regarding what is important.

Positive relationships with faculty and peers.

Service learning and participative learning.

Challenging activities and opportunities.

Smooth transitioning for freshmen and new students.

Goal-setting and contingency planning.

Intervention: Implementation

Below is a description of the tools and documents needed to implement the intervention

outlined in the project plan.

35

Summer 2016:

Summer 2016 can be utilized to reach out to freshmen seminar instructors regarding

having peer presenters deliver programs in their classes and offering freshmen extra credit for

attending programs/workshops outside of class. The purpose of this is to send the message to

students that MSU values the benefits of the LDCC, make it easier for students to access the

benefits of the LDCC, and to teach students the importance of goal-setting. Below is an example

email template to contact freshmen seminar instructors:

Dear Professor [Insert name here],

In an effort to promote the benefits of the Leadership Development and Campus

Connections Office to first-year students, we would like to have student presenters

deliver a program during class time. If you are in agreement, we would send one peer

presenter to one of your classes to discuss the benefits of getting involved on campus

and goal-setting. Our aim is to engage students in attending more programs/workshops

offered by the LDCC. In addition, based on a review of student engagement literature,

we have found that goal-setting can be a useful tool for encouraging students to follow

through with becoming involved on campus. If you are able to collaborate with us,

please contact [insert name here and contact information here] and we will choose a

date to come to your class. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or

suggestions you may have.

Thank you,

[Insert name here]

Fall 2016:

36

Peer presenters can go to freshmen seminar classes to deliver a workshop about getting

involved at MSU and goal-setting. If students know the benefits of the LDCC and they set goals

to become involved, students will probably be more likely to engage in the LDCC. Below is an

example goal-setting worksheet that can be used:

*This template is a product of http://www.gpslifeplan.org/generic/includes/career/CareerExploringEducation/

CareerEducationGenGPS100412_print.html

The Fall 2016 semester can also be utilized to establish the refer-a-friend program to

encourage student involvement in LDCC programs/workshops and the LDCP program.

37

Research on student engagement has emphasized the strong influence of peers on students’

behavior. Therefore, if uninvolved students are encouraged to become involved by other

students, they might be more likely to engage. Below is a breakdown of the program:

At the start of the Spring 2017 semester, involved students will be encouraged to bring

uninvolved students to programs/workshops and apply for the LDCP program.

Students who bring a new student (new meaning the student has never attended a LDCC

workshop/program) will be entered into a raffle to win a prize.

o Prizes can include: t-shirts, gift cards, meal vouchers, coupons, or whatever else is

realistic for the LDCC to provide.

In addition, if the student who brings a new student to the LDCC is part of an

organization (e.g. Greek), that will be recorded. A tally will be kept to assess which

organizations encouraged the most students to attend the programs or apply to the LDCP.

At the end of the semester that organization will be formally recognized (e.g. certificate).

Spring 2017:

The refer-a-friend program will be marketed and put into effect. Below is an example of

a flyer that can be used to market the program. In addition, information about this program can

be emailed to all students and peer presenters can share information about this program at their

programs/workshops.

38

Summer 2017:

In addition to contacting freshmen seminar instructors, instructors for classes with topics

related to the LDCC can also be contacted regarding having peer presenters come to their class to

deliver a program/workshop. Below is a list of potential classes:

Psychology of Leadership for Emerging Leaders: Theory and Application (PSY- 120)

Cooperative Education in Leadership Development (LEAD- 400)

Public Speaking (CMST- 222)

Organizational and Group Leadership (CMST-270)

Nonverbal Communication (CMST-362)

Career Management (CMST- 410)

39

Fall 2017:

The focus of the Fall 2017 semester should be to have peer presenters go to a variety of

classes to present related programs/workshops. Below is a breakdown for what programs are

applicable to the classes listed on the previous page:

Class that can benefit from LDCC programs LDCC Programs

Psychology of Leadership for Emerging

Leaders: Theory and Application

How Awareness Makes You a Better Leader

Leadership 360 degrees

The Process of Becoming an Effective Leader

What is Leadership?

Cooperative Education in Leadership Development How Awareness Makes You a Better Leader

Leadership 360 degrees

The Process of Becoming an Effective Leader

What is Leadership?

Public Speaking Public Speaking Tips and Tricks

Organization and Group Leadership How Awareness Makes You a Better Leader

Leadership 360 degrees

The Process of Becoming an Effective Leader

What is Leadership?

Nonverbal Communication Understanding Social Cues

Career Management Tips for Interviewing

How to Build Your Resume

Email Etiquette

In addition to going to various classes to present programs and workshops, peer

presenters can also go to club and organization meetings. This will make the benefits of LDCC

workshops and programs even more accessible to students and it might make students more

40

likely to attend programs and workshops on their own time. The Fall 2017 semester can be

utilized to reach out to clubs and organizations and offer to have peer presenter go to their

meetings. Below is a list of MSU clubs and organizations that can benefit from having peer

presenters deliver programs/workshops:

Greek Organizations

Resident Assistants (collaborate with RAs to deliver programs to their residents)

Active Minds

Debate Club

Any academic based club

Spring 2018:

Students join clubs and organizations to develop skills and grow as individuals.

Therefore, clubs and organizations could benefit immensely from having LDCC peer presenters

deliver programs/workshops at club and organization. Not only will it make the benefits of the

LDCC more accessible, it might make students more likely to attend LDCC programs/workshops

on their own time. On the next page is a breakdown of what programs might benefits

clubs/organizations the most:

41

Org. that can benefit from LDCC programs LDCC Programs

Greek Organizations Leadership programs

Time and Stress Management

Understanding Social Cues

Tips and Tricks for Public Speaking

Resident Assistants can collaborate with peer

presenters to deliver programs to their residents.

Any Program

Active Minds Time and Stress Management

Debate Clubs Tips and Tricks for Public Speaking

Understanding Social Cues

Academic Clubs Tips for Interviewing

How to Build a Resume

Time and Stress Management

Summer 2018: Bringing It All Together

Contact instructors from various classes, along with clubs and organizations to

collaborate with peer presenters. The purpose of this intervention is to show students the

benefits of the LDCC by having peer presenters go to classes and club meetings to deliver

programs and workshops. By making programs easily accessible, students will realize the

benefits of being engaged in the LDCC and might be more likely to attend programs and

workshops on their own time. Also, the refer-a-friend program would be beneficial because

peers have such a significant impact on student behavior. Therefore, if students encourage other

students to attend programs, it might make uninvolved students more likely to become involved.

REFERENCES

42

Achen, R. (2015). Using Facebook and Twitter to Encourage Physical Activity: Are College

Students Connecting With Campus Recreation on Social Media? A Pilot Study.

Recreational Sports Journal, 39(2), p.132-143.

Albanese, Kogut, Kucuk, McDermott, and Van Clef (2016). MSU Food Pantry Survey.

Alfano, H.J. and Eduljee, N.B. (2013). Differences in Work, Levels of Involvement and

Academic Performance Between Residential and Commuter Students. College Student

Journal, 47 (2), 334-342.

Arum, R. (2016). Navigating College. Educational Leadership, 73(6), p.42.46.

Campus Compact (2008). How Can Engaged Campuses Improve Students’ Success in College?

Retrieved from:

http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/downloads/Retention_Research_

Brief.pdf

Gollwitzer, P. and Oettingen, G. (2011). Planning Promotes Goal Striving. In Handbook of self-

regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.) (Chapter 9).

Hanks, M. P., and Eckland, B. K. (1976). Athletics and Social Participation in the Education

Attainment Process. Sociology of Education, 49(4): 271-294.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4), 692-724.

Kahu, E.R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher

Education, 38, 758–773.

Kuh, G., Gonyea, R., Palmer, M. (2001). The Disengaged Commuter Student: Fact or Fiction?

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. Retrieved from:

http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/commuter.pdf

43

Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. Buckley, B. Bridges, and J.C. Hayek. Forthcoming (2006). What

matters to student success: A review of the literature. ASHE Higher Education Report. 

Kuh, G. (2007). What Student Engagement Data Tell Us about College Readiness. Association

of American Colleges & Universities, 9 (1). Retrieved from:

https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/what-student-engagement-data-

tell-us-about-college-readiness

Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., and Gonyea, R. (2008). Unmasking the Effects of

Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of

Higher Education, 79(5), p.540-563.

Kuh, G.D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical

foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, p.5-20.

Latham, G. (2012). Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice, Second Edition.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Pascarella, E. T., and Chapman, D. (1983). A Multi-Institutional, Path Analytic Validation of

Tinto’s Model of College Withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20(1), p.

87-102.

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1979a). Interaction Effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s

Conceptual Models of College Dropout. Sociology of Education, 52(4), p. 197-210.

Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,

14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/

Vuori, J. (2014). Student engagement: buzzword or fuzzword? Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management, 36(5), p.509-519.

44