Wendy Young, Associate Director, Judicial Affairs, JMU Chris Orem, PhD Candidate, Center for...

DISCOVERING CHARACTERISTICS OF BEHAVIORAL STUDENTS: A JOURNEY TO PROGRAMMATIC

CHANGE

Wendy Young, Associate Director, Judicial Affairs, JMU

Chris Orem, PhD Candidate, Center for Assessment & Research Studies, JMU

Outcomes

Discuss how student affairs and assessment professionals can collaborate to create or improve intentional educational programming.

Identify pertinent literature that informs the research areas of interest.

Evaluate the results from two years worth of research involving the relationships between dysfunctional impulsivity, entitlement, and the judicial student population.

Discuss a pilot study done on dysfunctional impulsivity and peer influence that expands the understanding of this relationship in order to begin to inform programmatic technique.

Develop strategies for using data gathered on characteristics of student populations to make programmatic and instructional changes.

Assessment Cycle at JMU

Establishing Objectives

Selecting/Designing Instrument

Collecting Information

Analyzing/Maintaining Information

Using Information

*Note: Adapted to fit research instead of program development

The First Steps in the Journey: Establishing Objectives

Objective—Understand the characteristics of judicial students more in order to provide better education and services

Office began looking at decision-making of college students as a construct

Found decision-making construct to be broad with many components

Brought in an expert from our Psychology department on cognitive psychology and behavior

At the expert’s suggestion, we decided to look at characteristics we perceive may lead to poor decisions for college students who break a code of conduct

The First Steps in the Journey: Establishing Objectives

Had a discussion of characteristics we perceive in students who go through a judicial process

What characteristics do you believe describe this population of students?

**It’s what we think, what our gut tells us, but do we really know?

Our Chosen Characteristics

Impulsive

Lower Self Esteem

Entitled

Selecting Instruments

After deciding on which characteristics, the CARS graduate students did a review of the literature to find appropriate measures

Judicial staff met with CARS to determine measures

Chose 3 instruments:--Dysfunctional Impulsivity (Dickman,

1990)--Perceived Entitlement Scale (Campbell et

al, 2004)-- Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989)

Collecting Information: Pilot Year 2009-2010

Measures of Dysfunctional Impulsivity (DI), Self Esteem, & Entitlement were given to all students who were found responsible for a violation of the code of conduct and received an educational sanction

Dysfunctional Impulsivity (DI), Self Esteem, & Entitlement measures were given on Assessment Day to the freshman class as well (comparison group)

Analyses were done in the summer of 2010

Descriptions of Educational Programs

By the Numbers: *Two hour program*Community standards, laws, resources, risk reduction*Minor violations of alcohol policy

Calling the Shots:

*Three weeks, two hours each week (6 hours total)*Decision-making and alcohol*Major violations or multiple violations of alcohol policy

Back On Track: *Five weeks, two hours each week (10 hours total)*Physiology of addiction, Stages of Change and Health Belief Models, attendance in AA or NA, resources*Major alcohol/drug violations and repeated substance violations

High Expectations: *Two hour online program & 2 hour workshop*Minor violations of drug policy for marijuana

Values In Action: *Two weeks, two hours each week (4 hours total)*Personal values and decision making in personal and community life

Site Experience:*30, 45, or 60 site hours*Connection to the university through involvement*Reflection paper & groups

Mentor Experience:*8, 10, 12, or 15 hour-long meetings with volunteer faculty or staff member*Develop personal mission, goals, and action items*Connection to the university through development of personal direction*Reflection paper

Analyzing Information: Pilot 2009-2010

Participants (two samples): 3,600 Freshmen 1,200 Students required to visit Judicial Affairs

719 Assigned to Educational Sanctions 483=Freshmen, 170=Sophomore, 49=Juniors,

17=Seniors

13 research questions were investigated


Do first year students who visited the Office of Judicial Affairs differ from those who didn’t visit on measures of entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and/or self-esteem?

Scale Student Type n Mean SD t d

EntitlementVisited Judicial Affairs 784 27.43 10.09

1.05 0.10Did Not Visit Judicial Affairs 2930 27.01 9.94

Dysfunctional Impulsivity

Visited Judicial Affairs 767 41.80 10.377.63** 0.31Did Not Visit Judicial

Affairs 2842 38.48 10.77

Note. ***p<.001


Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on their year in school?

Scale Academic Year n Mean SD F

Entitlement

Freshman 483 24.81 10.10Sophomore 170 27.79 10.18Junior 49 27.27 9.38 4.16**Senior 17 24.94 7.43

Total 719 25.69 10.09

DysfunctionaIImpulsivity

Freshman 483 34.98 10.39Sophomore 170 33.45 10.20Junior 49 34.33 10.57 1.30Senior 17 37.29 12.29Total 719 34.63 10.41

Note. **p<.01


Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on the program they were sanctioned?

Scale OJA Program n Mean SD F


By the Numbers 431 33.81 9.85Calling the Shots/Back on Track 85 36.93 11.84High Expectations 28 37.25 9.54 3.15*Values in Action 39 34.59 10.62Mentor/Site Experience 34 39.24 12.71BASICS 84 34.11 10.00Total 701 34.67 10.39


Did students with multiple visits to Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem than one-time offenders?

Scale Student Group n Mean SD t d

EntitlementOne Time Visitor 627 27.25 9.97

1.02 0.09Multiple Visits 157 28.17 10.57


One Time Visitor 620 41.25 10.192.75** 0.24

Multiple Visits 153 43.82 10.90

Note. **p<.01


Did students with a non-compliance charge differ in entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and/or self-esteem than those without a similar charge?


EntitlementCompliant 665 25.60 10.11

0.72 0.09Non-Compliance Charge 55 26.62 9.80


Compliant 665 34.14 10.254.42*** 0.60

Non-Compliance Charge 55 40.51 10.47

Note. ***p<.001


Significant differences in dysfunctional impulsivity surfaced in multiple tests

Older students seemed to be more entitled, while younger students were more impulsive

We were only testing students who received an educational sanction, not all students found responsible

Using Information: Decisions Made After Pilot

Give entitlement and dysfunctional impulsivity again to see if replication will occur; give to all students found responsible

Begin sharing results with assistant directors overseeing educational programs

Begin brainstorming how we might change programs or processes

Design a pilot study to look at any correlation between dysfunctional impulsivity and peer influence (since most of our programming is peer-based)

Collecting Information:2010-2011

DI & Entitlement were given to all students who were found responsible for a violation of the code of conduct

DI & Entitlement were given on Assessment Day to the freshman class as well (comparison group)

Pilot correlation study was done in Fall 2010 on Peer Influence & DI

Analyzing Information:Pilot Correlation Study Fall 2010 Participants:

--N=665 (Female-530; Male-131)--Voluntarily took a qualtrics survey sent in an email in November 2010--170 freshmen, 118 sophomores, 130 juniors, 172 seniors, and 74 graduate students

Measures:--Peer & Parent Influence Scale (PPI; Werner-Wilson and Arbel, 2000)--Dysfunctional Impulsivity (Dickman, 1990)

Main Finding:-- There is a small, positive correlation between dysfunctional impulsivity and peer influence (Spearman=.258; p<.0001, N=665)

Analyzing Information:2010-2011

Participants (two samples): 3,745 Freshmen 1,181 Students charged with at least one

violation 570 Sanctioned to Educational Programs 394=Freshmen, 130=Sophomore, 46=Juniors and

Seniors,

13 research questions were investigated When appropriate, 2009-2010 data were

combined with 2010-2011 data


Do freshmen students who visited the Office of Judicial Affairs differ from those who didn’t visit on measures of entitlement and /or dysfunctional impulsivity?

Scale Student Type n Mean SD t d


Visited Judicial Affairs 682 40.80 10.67

8.14** 0.34Did Not Visit Judicial Affairs 3015 37.14 10.60

Note. ***p<.001


Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement and/or dysfunctional impulsivity depending on their year in school?

Scale Academic Year n Mean SD F

Entitlement

Freshman 394 25.07 10.40Sophomore 130 25.65 11.97

Junior/Senior 46 25.11 10.28 .14

Total 570 25.21 10.75


Freshman 394 35.23 10.93Sophomore 130 34.77 10.80Junior/Senior 46 35.02 10.59 .09

Total 570 35.11 10.85Note. **p<.01


Did students with multiple visits to Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement and dysfunctional impulsivity than one-time offenders?Scale Student Group n Mean SD t d


One Time Visitor 895 34.13 10.48

4.33*** 0.30Multiple Visits 265 37.31 10.58

Note. ***p<.001


Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on the program they were sanctioned?

Scale OJA Program n Mean SD F


By the Numbers 743 34.11 10.31Calling the Shots/Back on Track 133 36.99 11.40High Expectations 51 37.45 9.44 3.81**Values in Action 63 34.59 10.49Mentor/Site Experience 34 39.24 12.71BASICS 84 34.11 10.00Total 1108 34.85 10.54

Note. **p=.002


Did students with a non-compliance charge differ in entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and/or self-esteem than those without a similar charge?

Scale Student Group nMea

n SD t d


Compliant 1069 34.51 10.52

3.84*** 0.42Non-Compliance Charge 91 38.92 10.50

Note. ***p<.001


Do students who are not assigned to educational sanctions differ in levels of entitlement and/or dysfunctional impulsivity from students who are assigned to educational sanctions?



Educational Program 502 35.14 10.92.066 .00

Probation/Other 49 35.04 9.87

Note. Sample only includes the first case in which the student was involved.


Any effects involving entitlement were non-existent.

Students (particularly freshmen) who visited Judicial Affairs are slightly more dysfunctionally impulsive than students who did not visit.

Students in higher level alcohol programs had higher levels of DI than students in lower level programs.

Non-compliance may be more related to DI than to entitlement, as originally hypothesized.

Students who were sanctioned to probation did not differ from those who received educational sanctions.

Using Information: Ideas for Programmatic Change

Implement additional follow up studies to look at the relationship between peer influence and dysfunctional impulsivity for the judicial student population

Do a qualitative study by talking with students who score higher and lower in dysfunctional impulsivity to see how they experience decision-making and how they experience our programs

Using Information: Ideas for Programmatic Change

Introduce classroom strategies that work best for students high in DI (e.g. ADD/ADHD research), especially in higher level programs

Give instruments before program attendance to determine which program the student is assigned to (e.g. all high DI students in same program)

Use language and strategies that work best for students high in DI (e.g. ADD/ADHD research) in our proactive education

If we continue to see relationship between DI and peer influence, look for strategies for having peers be more involved, in various ways, with our proactive education and our classroom environments (e.g. teaching, videos, peer mentoring)

Look for ways to educate students with non-compliance charges keeping DI in mind

Questions & Discussion

Contact Information

Wendy YoungAssociate Director

[email protected]

Chris OremDoctoral Candidate, CARS

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Wendy Young, Associate Director, Judicial Affairs, JMU Chris Orem, PhD Candidate, Center for...

Documents

Transcript of Wendy Young, Associate Director, Judicial Affairs, JMU Chris Orem, PhD Candidate, Center for...