Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) - Pilot Report

Similar documents
Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) Report

University of Georgia 2011 Global Perspectives Inventory Pilot Administration Results

Midwest University. Global Perspective Inventory Study Abroad Form Report

Texas A&M University Texarkana. Global Perspective Inventory General Form Report

Midwest University. Global Perspective Inventory New Student Report

How Colleges Can Influence the

Assessing experiences and engagement that foster global learning and development. Chicago IL

Health Consciousness of Siena Students

China January 2009 International Business Trip Analysis

Published online: 17 Feb 2011.

Highlights of the Research Consortium 2002 Non-Clinical Sample Study

2008 Ohio State University. Campus Climate Study. Prepared by. Student Life Research and Assessment

Analysis of relationship between emotional intelligence and quality of life in oncology patients

Spring 2017 Student Culture, Diversity, and Globalization Survey

Taylor University s Intercultural Inventory Analysis. Presented by Natalie Nunes August 5, 2009

Assessing Individuals Global Perspective

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

1. Below is the output of a 2 (gender) x 3(music type) completely between subjects factorial ANOVA on stress ratings

Defining and assessing social responsibility as a study abroad outcome

Relationship between personality traits and gender of Police officers in Punjab, Pakistan

PSYCHOLOGY 320L Problem Set #4: Estimating Sample Size, Post Hoc Tests, and Two-Factor ANOVA

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: THE EFFECT ON SOCIAL MEDIA USE, GENDER, AND INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE. Presented by: Gail Grabczynski April 21, 2018

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology

Advanced ANOVA Procedures

Internet Dependency among University Entrants: A Pilot Study

THE STATSWHISPERER. Introduction to this Issue. Doing Your Data Analysis INSIDE THIS ISSUE

DISCPP (DISC Personality Profile) Psychometric Report

A study of association between demographic factor income and emotional intelligence

MBA 605 Business Analytics Don Conant, PhD. GETTING TO THE STANDARD NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Academic Achievement and Emotional Intelligence: Predicting the Successful Transition from High School to University*

Midterm Exam MMI 409 Spring 2009 Gordon Bleil

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND ETHICAL COMPETENCE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

Thriving in College: The Role of Spirituality. Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D. Azusa Pacific University

Cross-cultural study of person-centred quality of life domains and indicators: a replication

Study of the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Self Efficacy among School Going Adolescents

International Journal of English and Education

Differential Effect of Socio-Demographic Factors on Emotional Intelligence of Secondary School Students in Ernakulam District

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Program Transcript

Simple Linear Regression

Career Decision-Making Difficulties Perceived by College Students in Taiwan *

Emotional Stability, Age and Work Experience: An Analytical Study

Emotional Intelligence and its Predictive Power in Iranian Foreign Language Learners Language Achievement

Regression. Page 1. Variables Entered/Removed b Variables. Variables Removed. Enter. Method. Psycho_Dum

Evaluating the Greek Version of Religious Commitment Inventory-10 on a Sample of Pomak Households

Study of Meditational Role of Self-Esteem in the Relationship Between Perfectionism and Competitive Anxiety Elite Athletes

Spiritual Intelligence, Altruism, School Environment and Academic Achievement as predictor of Mental Health of Adolescents

ANOVA in SPSS (Practical)

Subescala D CULTURA ORGANIZACIONAL. Factor Analysis

THE WELL-BEING OF WILLIAM & MARY STUDENTS March 2013 Report by the Student Affairs Assessment Committee

Analysis of Confidence Rating Pilot Data: Executive Summary for the UKCAT Board

2012 SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM

Demographic Factors in Multiple Intelligence of Pre-Service Physical Science Teachers

Sex, Gender Role, and Perceptions of Toy Gender. Mary Alt & Jeff Aspelmeier Radford University

APÊNDICE 6. Análise fatorial e análise de consistência interna

AQ Intervention for Assessing and Counseling Students of Color

Shabd Braham E ISSN

Demonstration of active Side Shift Type1(Mirror Image ) in Right (Major) Thoracic curve.

Analysis of Variance: repeated measures

Psychological Experience of Attitudinal Ambivalence as a Function of Manipulated Source of Conflict and Individual Difference in Self-Construal

Efficacy of Gender and Religious Status on Spiritual Intelligence and Psychological Well-being of College Students

MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question.

RESULTS. Chapter INTRODUCTION

FACTORS AFFECTING ENGLISH READING COMPREHENSION ABILITY: INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF EI, GENDER, AND MAJOR

Examining Jamaican Teachers Global Perspectives: Prospects for Vision 2030 Jamaica

Subescala B Compromisso com a organização escolar. Factor Analysis

Steps in Inferential Analyses. Inferential Statistics. t-test

Journal of American Science 2010;6(10) Age and gender differences and construct of the children s emotional intelligence

A study of Gender Influence on Emotional Intelligence of Secondary School Teachers

A Longitudinal Study on the Psychological Well-Being of College Students

Variables Influencing Emotional Intelligence of Visually Impaired Students in Higher Education

Validity. Ch. 5: Validity. Griggs v. Duke Power - 2. Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)

SUMMER REGISTRATION SATISFACTION SURVEY 2010

Developing a Global Perspective for Personal and Social Responsibility

Variable Measurement, Norms & Differences

Psychology Department Assessment

CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey Executive Summary

Comparison of the emotional intelligence of the university students of the Punjab province

Sophomore = Wise Fool? The Examination of Alcohol Consumption Throughout Class Years

THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IN THE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT

Dr. Kelly Bradley Final Exam Summer {2 points} Name

Regression Including the Interaction Between Quantitative Variables

Assessment of sexual function by DSFI among the Iranian married individuals

psy300 / Bizer / Factorial Analyses: 2 x 3 Between-Subjects Factorial Design

Developmental Assessment of Young Children Second Edition (DAYC-2) Summary Report

Physical Intelligence of University of Technology MARA Sport Science Students

The Multi Institutional Study of Leadership University of San Diego Overall Findings from the Study

Analysis and Interpretation of Data Part 1

STA 3024 Spring 2013 EXAM 3 Test Form Code A UF ID #

Friendship and problem solving : the effect of various situations on co-rumination in emerging adulthood friendships

Research paper. Split-plot ANOVA. Split-plot design. Split-plot design. SPSS output: between effects. SPSS output: within effects

Guru Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 187 ( 2015 ) PSIWORLD 2014

Item-Total Statistics

DEAF STUDENTS CULTURAL IDENTITY AND PARTICIPATION IN A DEAF STUDIES COURSE

ABSTRACT. Field of Research: Academic achievement, Emotional intelligence, Gifted students.

Dominican University

The Relationship between Personality Traits and Reading Proficiency

Winston-Salem State University

Job stress, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction among the IT employees in Coimbatore

Transcription:

Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) - Pilot 2010-11 Report Introduction The Global Perspectives Inventory is a nationally recognized instrument designed to measure a student s global perspective. The GPI asks questions related to student cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development. The GPI is a survey of 64 items including a few biographical items. It has been specifically designed to provide a self-report of a person's perspectives in three dimensions of global learning and development--cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Respondents record their views on the community and also report the level of involvement in twelve curricular and co-curricular activities. All freshmen and seniors (College Station, Galveston, and Qatar campuses) were emailed an invitation to complete the GPI, 10,000 freshmen (U1) and 12,500 seniors (U4). Additionally, 2,300 study abroad participants from the previous academic year were invited to complete the GPI. GPI Scales Knowing Degree of complexity of one s view the importance of cultural context in judging what is important to know and value. Knowledge Degree of understanding and awareness of various cultures and their impact on our global society and level of proficiency in more than one language. Intrapersonal Identity Level of awareness of one s unique identity and degree of acceptance of one s ethnic, racial, and gender dimensions of one s identity. Intrapersonal Affect Level of respect for and acceptance of cultural perspectives different from one s own and degree of emotional confidence when living in complex situations, which reflects an emotional intelligence that is important in one s processing encounters with other cultures. Social Responsibility Level of interdependence and social concern for others. Social Interaction Degree of engagement with others who are different from oneself and degree of cultural sensitivity in living in pluralistic settings. Well-being Level of commitment to making difference in this world, working for the concerns of others, and having a purpose in life. Global Citizenship Level of understanding about cultural differences, identity as one who can interact with others from different cultures, and a self confidence in making a difference in this world. 1

Findings This section provides the presentation of the findings for the study. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference in the scores from the 8 GPI scales based on classification (freshmen/seniors) and participation in study abroad. Once descriptive statistics were determined, analysis of variance was conducted to compare the means scores of the three groups. ANOVA was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in global competence based on classification. Post hoc (Tukey) tests were conducted to further analyze the nature of statistically significant findings. These tests specify between which classification(s) the statistically significant finding(s) lie. Sample and Demographics 429 freshmen completed the GPI: 179 males and 227 females. 611 seniors completed the GPI: 215 males, 369 females and 2 other. 214 study abroad participants completed the GPI: 64 males, 150 females, 5 freshmen, 22 sophomores, 38 juniors, 123 seniors and 21 graduate students. Results The results in Table 1 reveal the descriptive statistics for each GPI scale by classification (freshmen, seniors, study abroad participants). Mean scores for each GPI scale operate on a 5- point Likert-type scale. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics by Classification 2

95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max Knowing Freshmen 429 3.5250.43730.02111 3.4835 3.5665 2.33 4.67 Seniors 611 3.6294.44412.01797 3.5941 3.6646 2.44 5.00 Study Abroad 214 3.7637.40109.02742 3.7097 3.8178 2.56 4.78 Total 1254 3.6166.44197.01248 3.5921 3.6411 2.33 5.00 Freshmen 429 3.5939.63132.03048 3.5340 3.6538 1.20 5.00 Knowledge Upperclassmen 611 3.6782.63098.02553 3.6281 3.7284 1.60 5.00 Study Abroad 214 3.7355.61663.04215 3.6524 3.8186 1.80 5.00 Total 1254 3.6592.63026.01780 3.6243 3.6941 1.20 5.00 Intrapersonal Freshmen 429 4.1100.53671.02591 4.0591 4.1610 1.60 5.00 Identity Seniors 611 4.2511.47881.01937 4.2130 4.2891 2.60 5.00 Study Abroad 214 4.2542.48378.03307 4.1890 4.3194 2.00 5.00 Total 1254 4.2033.50430.01424 4.1754 4.2313 1.60 5.00 Intrapersonal Freshmen 429 3.6374.48595.02346 3.5913 3.6836 1.89 4.78 Affect Seniors 611 3.7660.48837.01976 3.7272 3.8048 1.78 5.00 Study Abroad 214 3.8978.41496.02837 3.8418 3.9537 2.67 4.78 Total 1254 3.7445.48395.01367 3.7177 3.7713 1.78 5.00 Interpersonal Freshmen 429 3.7616.55025.02657 3.7093 3.8138 1.67 5.00 Social Seniors 611 3.7853.56566.02288 3.7403 3.8302 1.83 5.00 Responsib. Study Abroad 214 3.8619.54243.03708 3.7888 3.9350 2.17 5.00 Total 1254 3.7902.55712.01573 3.7594 3.8211 1.67 5.00 Interpersonal Freshmen 429 3.4887.55268.02668 3.4363 3.5412 1.00 4.83 Social Seniors 611 3.5409.55066.02228 3.4971 3.5846 1.67 5.00 Interaction Study Abroad 214 3.7641.45997.03144 3.7021 3.8260 2.50 4.83 Total 1254 3.5611.54493.01539 3.5309 3.5913 1.00 5.00 Well-Being Freshmen 429 3.7380.50402.02433 3.6901 3.7858 1.86 5.00 Seniors 611 3.8390.48004.01942 3.8008 3.8771 2.43 5.00 Study Abroad 214 3.8972.47341.03236 3.8334 3.9610 2.29 5.00 Total 1254 3.8144.49043.01385 3.7872 3.8415 1.86 5.00 Global Citizenship Freshmen 429 3.5352.53968.02606 3.4840 3.5864 1.70 5.00 Seniors 611 3.6936.54916.02222 3.6500 3.7372 2.10 5.00 Study Abroad 214 3.8687.46512.03180 3.8060 3.9314 2.40 5.00 Total 1254 3.6693.54435.01537 3.6391 3.6995 1.70 5.00 3

The results in Table 2 reveal the ANOVA for the GPI scales by classification. The ANOVA resulted in statistically significant (p <.05) differences in each of the GPI scales other than Interpersonal Social Responsibility. A post-hoc test was necessary to further understand the nature of the statistically significant results. Table 2 ANOVA for GPI Scales by Classification Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Knowing Between Groups 8.333 2 4.167 22.046.000 Within Groups 236.429 1251.189 Total 244.762 1253 Between Groups 3.295 2 1.647 4.168.016 Knowledge Within Groups 494.435 1251.395 Total 497.730 1253 Intrapersonal Between Groups 5.681 2 2.841 11.353.000 Identity Within Groups 312.985 1251.250 Total 318.666 1253 Intrapersonal Between Groups 10.226 2 5.113 22.584.000 Affect Within Groups 283.234 1251.226 Total 293.460 1253 Interpersonal Between Groups 1.467 2.734 2.369.094 Social Within Groups 387.441 1251.310 Responsib. Total 388.908 1253 Interpersonal Between Groups 11.313 2 5.657 19.615.000 Social Within Groups 360.765 1251.288 Interaction Total 372.078 1253 Well-Being Between Groups 4.342 2 2.171 9.143.000 Within Groups 297.030 1251.237 Total 301.372 1253 Global Between Groups 16.584 2 8.292 29.245.000 Citizenship Within Groups 354.704 1251.284 Total 371.288 1253 The results of the Tukey post-hoc test revealed in Table 3 further illustrate the nature of the statistically significant results. There was a significantly significant difference (p <.05) between 4

the scores of freshmen and each of the other classifications (seniors and study-abroad) in each of the following GPI scales: cognitive knowing, intrapersonal identity, intrapersonal affect, wellbeing, and global citizenship. Further, there was a statistically significant difference between freshmen and study-abroad participants in cognitive knowing and interpersonal social interaction. There was a statistically significant difference (p <.05) in cognitive knowing, intrapersonal affect, interpersonal social interaction and global citizenship between seniors and study-abroad participants. Table 3 Post Hoc Test for Significant ANOVA Results Dependent Variable (I) Participant (J) Participant Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Knowing Freshmen Seniors -.10437 *.02738.000 -.1686 -.0401 Study Abroad -.23875 *.03638.000 -.3241 -.1534 Seniors Freshmen.10437 *.02738.000.0401.1686 Study Abroad -.13438 *.03453.000 -.2154 -.0533 Study Abroad Freshmen.23875 *.03638.000.1534.3241 Seniors.13438 *.03453.000.0533.2154 Knowledge Intrapersonal Identity Intrapersonal Affect Freshmen Seniors -.08429.03960.085 -.1772.0086 Study Abroad -.14157 *.05261.020 -.2650 -.0181 Seniors Freshmen.08429.03960.085 -.0086.1772 Study Abroad -.05728.04994.485 -.1745.0599 Study Abroad Freshmen.14157 *.05261.020.0181.2650 Seniors.05728.04994.485 -.0599.1745 Freshmen Seniors -.14104 *.03151.000 -.2150 -.0671 Study Abroad -.14418 *.04186.002 -.2424 -.0460 Seniors Freshmen.14104 *.03151.000.0671.2150 Study Abroad -.00314.03973.997 -.0964.0901 Study Abroad Freshmen.14418 *.04186.002.0460.2424 Seniors.00314.03973.997 -.0901.0964 Freshmen Seniors -.12857 *.02997.000 -.1989 -.0582 Study Abroad -.26032 *.03982.000 -.3538 -.1669 Seniors Freshmen.12857 *.02997.000.0582.1989 Study Abroad -.13175 *.03780.001 -.2204 -.0431 5

Study Abroad Freshmen.26032 *.03982.000.1669.3538 Seniors.13175 *.03780.001.0431.2204 Interpersonal Freshmen Seniors -.02369.03505.778 -.1059.0586 Social Responsibility Interpersonal Social Interaction Study Abroad -.10035.04657.080 -.2096.0089 Seniors Freshmen.02369.03505.778 -.0586.1059 Study Abroad -.07666.04421.193 -.1804.0271 Study Abroad Freshmen.10035.04657.080 -.0089.2096 Seniors.07666.04421.193 -.0271.1804 Freshmen Seniors -.05215.03383.272 -.1315.0272 Study Abroad -.27535 *.04494.000 -.3808 -.1699 Seniors Freshmen.05215.03383.272 -.0272.1315 Study Abroad -.22320 *.04266.000 -.3233 -.1231 Study Abroad Freshmen.27535 *.04494.000.1699.3808 Seniors.22320 *.04266.000.1231.3233 Well-Being Freshmen Seniors -.10100 *.03069.003 -.1730 -.0290 Study Abroad -.15922 *.04078.000 -.2549 -.0635 Seniors Freshmen.10100 *.03069.003.0290.1730 Study Abroad -.05823.03871.289 -.1490.0326 Study Abroad Freshmen.15922 *.04078.000.0635.2549 Seniors.05823.03871.289 -.0326.1490 Global Freshmen Seniors -.15842 *.03354.000 -.2371 -.0797 Citizenship Study Abroad -.33349 *.04456.000 -.4381 -.2289 Seniors Freshmen.15842 *.03354.000.0797.2371 Study Abroad -.17507 *.04230.000 -.2743 -.0758 Study Abroad Freshmen.33349 *.04456.000.2289.4381 Seniors.17507 *.04230.000.0758.2743 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 6

External Comparisons The results in Table 4 reveal the averages for each participant group from Texas A&M compared to national averages for other public doctorate institutions. Table 4 Texas A&M averages compared to national averages Texas A&M National Average Texas A&M National Average Texas A&M GPI Scale Average Public Doctorate Average Public Doctorate Average Freshmen Freshmen Seniors Seniors Study Abroad Knowing 3.53 N/A 3.63 N/A 3.76 Knowledge 3.59 3.60 3.68 3.70 3.74 Intra. Identity 4.11 4.12 4.25 4.22 4.25 Intra. Affect 3.64 3.66 3.77 3.80 3.90 Inter. Social Responsibility 3.76 3.67 3.79 3.74 3.86 Inter. Social Interaction 3.49 3.49 3.54 3.60 3.76 Well-Being 3.74 3.73 3.84 3.81 3.90 Global Citizenship 3.54 3.57 3.69 3.72 3.87 Summary Seniors display higher levels of global competence than freshmen in the following GPI scales: cognitive knowing, intrapersonal identity, intrapersonal affect, well-being, and global citizenship. Freshmen scored equal-to or higher than the national average on three of the GPI scales. Seniors scored higher than the national average on three of the GPI scales. Study-abroad participants display higher levels of global competence than freshmen in the following GPI scales: cognitive knowing, cognitive knowledge, intrapersonal identity, intrapersonal affect, interpersonal social interaction, well-being, and global citizenship. Study-abroad participants display higher levels of global competence than seniors in the following GPI scales: cognitive knowing, intrapersonal affect, interpersonal social interaction, and global citizenship. 7