1 / 18

The Relationship Between College Student Involvement, Investment, and Satisfaction

The Relationship Between College Student Involvement, Investment, and Satisfaction. Sarah Maurer Hanover College . Thoughts on Student Satisfaction.

kostya
Download Presentation

The Relationship Between College Student Involvement, Investment, and Satisfaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Relationship Between College Student Involvement, Investment, and Satisfaction Sarah Maurer Hanover College

  2. Thoughts on Student Satisfaction • Given the considerable investment of time and energy that most students make in attending college, their perceptions of the value of that experience should be given substantial weight. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that student satisfaction can be legitimately subordinated to any other educational outcome. -Alexander Astin, 1993

  3. Involvement and Satisfaction • Participation in Greek Organizations (Pennington et al, 1989) • Student Athletes (Pascarella et al, 1991) • Astin (1984): Residential Students vs. Commuting Students • Abrahamowicz (1988): Greatest differences in student satisfaction found in interpersonal relationships

  4. Rusbult’s Investment Model • Introduced by Rusbult (1983) • Satisfaction increases with lower costs and higher rewards • Commitment increases with higher rewards and investment size, and lower costs • Theory has been used to apply to job commitment (1983); satisfaction and commitment in relationships (1986)

  5. Hatcher (1992) • Studied College Student commitment using Rusbult’s Investment Model • Phase 1: Sample of students generated concrete examples of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments associated with college • Phase 2: Examples used to teach concepts to a new sample of students, who then completed the global measures of the investment model variables • Found satisfaction, alternatives, and investments each affected commitment

  6. Current Study • Case Study of Hanover College • Approximately 1,000 students • Private, located in rural Indiana • Largely residential • Issue of retention

  7. Hypotheses • Involvement will be positively correlated with Investment. • Involvement will be positively correlated with Satisfaction. • Investment will be positively correlated with Satisfaction.

  8. Methods • Link to online survey was sent to all Hanover College students through weekly Student Life E-Newsletter – 125 total participants • Survey contained measures for Involvement, Investment, and Satisfaction, based on previous studies • Also included open-ended questions to allow for additional comments from participants

  9. Sample Items • Involvement • Asked for students to list activities and specify if office held – Weighted activities in analysis • Investment (=.71) • If you were to consider withdrawing from Hanover, how much do you think you would lose from the following area of your life? • Satisfaction • Knowing what you do now, how likely would you be to enroll at Hanover again?

  10. Results • Investment • Min: 2.00 Max: 4.75 • Mean: 3.57 • St. Dev.: 0.545 • Satisfaction • Min: 1.00 Max: 5.00 • Mean: 3.59 • St. Dev.: 1.288 • Involvement • Min: 0.00 Max: 45.00 • Mean: 10.86 • St. Dev.: 6.27

  11. Results • No significant correlation between involvement and investment (r= -.08, p=.41, N=125) • No significant correlation between involvement and satisfaction (r= -.05, p=.57, N=125) • Significant positive correlation between satisfaction and investment (r=.66, p=.00, N=125)

  12. Additional Factors • Gender: even across investment, satisfaction, and involvement • Place of residence: no effect on investment, satisfaction, or involvement • GPA: no effect on investment, satisfaction, or involvement • Type of activity: no effect on investment or satisfaction

  13. Class Year Effects • Juniors least likely to reenroll (3.15), sophomores most likely (4.05) • Investment and Satisfaction reflected same pattern • Juniors and seniors more involved than first-years and sophomores • Trend toward significance

  14. Class Year & Reenrollment

  15. Conclusions • One of three hypotheses supported: Investment positively correlated with Satisfaction • Involvement findings go against previous research

  16. Future Research • Create more accurate measure of student involvement • Measure level of investment in individual activities

  17. Implications for Student Life Professionals • Involvement does not seem to be as important in satisfaction as previously thought • Critical for students to be invested in the institution

  18. Questions?

More Related