UNIVERSITY LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT (UNILOA) NATIONAL REPORT OF MEANS, 2008-2009 C O MPILE D BY: THE CENTER FOR LE ARN ING OU TCOMES ASSESSM ENT, INC. INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA
UniLOA The University Learning Outcomes Assessment National Report of Means 2008-2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University Learning Outcomes Assessment (UniLOA) is a standardized assessment instrument designed to measure student behaviors consistent with seven domains regarded as critical by employers, academicians, managers, researchers, accrediting agencies, and a host of others. Through a variety of administration protocols, the UniLOA measures behavior at key points along a student s academic lifespan, thus providing valuable data for college and university decision-makers to support strategic planning. This report is the second annual report of norms for the UniLOA project, which has been collecting data for over 5 years. Over three years was spent in development and pilot testing of the UniLOA before issuing the first annual report of norms. The authors were committed to assuring high reliability of the instrument before making it available for general use. Reliability for the UniLOA has exceeded the authors initial assumptions as themes and patterns emerge from its administration at institutions or within organizations with great consistency. This report presents mean scores for each of the UniLOA s 70 items and its seven domains as well as a number of demographic-specific categories. Readers are encouraged to review these findings from two distinct perspectives. First, to review findings of performance correlated with specific demographic variables to assist in advising and mentoring to students as they self-manage their collegiate experience (i.e., supporting more hours of study and sleep, providing guidance in students choice for employment, volunteer service, and involvement with organized activities). Second, to review scores of each domain and each individual item. Levels of student behavior can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of an institution in its support of student growth, learning, and development as operationalized by the 70 UniLOA items. Summary of Findings 2008-2009 Analysis of the UniLOA s National Database presented in this report can provide information from which broad assumptions regarding the behavioral performance of higher education students on a national level can be made. Some of the more telling findings include: No single or small set of demographic variables or experiential phenomena can be considered primary or elemental in the support of holistic student growth, learning, and development (GLD). Rather, student GLD is the result of multiple phenomena, which requires higher education to re-orient itself from its present paradigm of simple fixes to the
development of more elaborate and complex matrices of supports, services, interventions, and programs designed to promote holistic student GLD. For the second year in a row, the frequency of student behaviors consistent with Citizenship is considerably lower than behaviors of other domains measured by the UniLOA. As was the case in the previous year of this research, low scores are reported for questions suggesting that students fail to actively engage an effective goal-oriented approach to managing their own growth, learning, and development outcomes. While they report fairly high degrees of behavior consistent with having aspirational goals, they may fail to effectively manage day-to-day goal-oriented behavior that would increase the probability of achieving their aspirational goals. No pattern change is noted from the previous year s UniLOA findings that overall GLD follows a stable and consistent course of growth along all UniLOA domains throughout students college years. This finding might suggest that normal maturation processes are primarily responsible for GLD rather than the impact of the collegiate experience itself. For the second year, findings suggest that students entering and pursing their collegiate education with higher grade point averages engage in behaviors at a higher rate across all UniLOA domains than those reporting lower academic performance. Significant differences are observed along all seven domains by those students engaging in 18 or more hours of study per week, but the average number of study hours was 9.29 by students completing the UniLOA. Socioeconomic status, as measured by qualification for receipt or nonreceipt of a Pell Grant, seems to have very little impact on the frequency of behaviors along all seven domains of the UniLOA. This finding is striking in that actual persistence and ultimate graduation rates appear to follow SES patterns, with lower SES students failing to remain in school through degree completion at a higher rate than students from higher SES levels. Students pursuing undergraduate degrees in pre-medicine, pre-dentistry, and social sciences score consistently higher along all domains than other academic majors. As was the case in last year s report, UniLOA domain scores are higher for students holding 2 leadership positions than those holding fewer or more. UniLOA domain scores are consistently higher for students belonging to 4 formal organizations or activities than those belonging to more or less than that number.
Students reporting prior enlisted-level military service score from 1-5 points lower across all domains than those having never served, and those serving in the reserves score an additional.5 to 2 points lower than those reporting prior military service. Drawing from a larger sample than was reported in the previous year s Report but consistent with those results, student-athletes, as measured by receipt of an athletic scholarship, report behaviors at a level from 3-4 points lower than student non-athletes along all of the UniLOA s seven domains. Students serving in some amount of volunteer work score higher than those not engaging in volunteer work, with optimal performance demonstrated in students volunteering for 4 hour per week on average. Analysis of the UniLOA National Database reveals ideal (exemplar) levels of student behaviors. The table below presents exemplar levels contrasted with actual mean student performance nationwide as computed from the database. Student Exemplar Sample Average Number of Hours Studying per Week 18 or more 9.29 Number of Hours Watching Television or Engaging in Online Entertainment per week 2 or less 6.27 Cumulative Grade Point Average 3.5 or above 3.12 Number of Organizational memberships 4 1.79 Number of Positions Held 2.64 Number of Volunteer Hours per Week 4 2.24 - Continued on Next Page-
Critical Thinking Self Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and Student Demographics Correlation Table While correlation of many student demographics with the UniLOA s domains has been found to be statistically significant, those correlations are fairly weak, suggesting that no single magic bullet exists that is responsible for triggering GLD. This finding bolsters the argument that no single demographic or small set of demographics or experiences are primarily responsible for overall student GLD. Rather, student GLD is the combination of multiple and interrelated phenomena, which requires higher education to re-orient itself from the present paradigm of simple fixes to the development of more elaborate and complex matrices of supports, services, interventions, and programs designed to promote holistic student GLD. Student Choices Grade Point Average ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Credit Hours Accumulated ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Number of Organizational Memberships ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Number of Organizational Positions Held * ** ** * Hours per week studying ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Hours per week volunteering ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Hours per night sleeping ** ** ** * * Hours per week watching television or online entertainment ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Hours of week working for pay * ** * ** ** ** ** Student Demographics Gender ** ** ** ** ** ** Ethnicity ** ** ** ** ** * Significant at <.05 ** Significant at <.01 Presentation of Findings The second part of this report presents mean scores of the national sample for each item on the UniLOA, which will allow the reader better understanding of how each item impacts the overall domain score. The final part of the report presents mean domain scores of the sample based on demographic variables. Cautionary Statement To date, the UniLOA has been administered to nearly 10,000 college students across the nation, representing both large and small private and public institutions. While the UniLOA s authors suggest that results presented in this report have a high degree of generalizability to the broad collegiate population, differences can be expected to exist within individual institutions or organizations that may not be consistent with national means.
DOMAIN AND COMPOSITE MEANS OF THE UNILOA NATIONAL DATABASE UniLOA National Database Sample (n=18,257) 2007-2008 Average Domain Score...... 69.85 2008-2009 Average Domain Score.....71.65 (Maximum UniLOA Item and Domain Score = 100) Average Net Gain in each UniLOA Domain Score from 2007-08 to 2008-09..+1.78 Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 2008-2009 Means 73.55 71.71 74.74 70.88 65.78 72.65 72.21 2007-2008 Means 72.64 69.55 73.45 69.57 63.15 70.30 70.28 Difference +.91 +2.16 +1.29 +1.31 +2.63 +2.35 +1.93 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 2008-2009 Means 2007-2008 Means
HIGEST AND LOWEST IT EMS PER DOMAIN Critical Thinking The UniLOA s authors consider critical thinking to be an active process where students use skills of evaluating, analyzing, assessing, interpreting, questioning and restating a problem or challenge. Effective problem-solving is bolstered by the individual s skill in applying critical thinking skills to their academic lives and their lived experience. A skilled critical thinker should be able to examine and understand the fundamental qualities of problems, collect and analyze critical data, draw appropriate interpretations and conclusions, examine broad-based problem-solving options and effectively communicate and implement appropriate solutions. Highest Scored Domain Item I know when someone is using misleading language. For example, I can tell when a TV advertisement has used some weasel words to try to confuse or mislead me. Score 76.9 Lowest Scored Domain Item I am good at describing things in class. For example, I answer the teacher s questions when we are reviewing material. 69.1 Self-Awareness Self awareness as a construct can be defined in multiple ways, but when those definitions are examined to identify common elements, consistency among the many definitions emerges. Self-awareness deals with conscious awareness from internal and external perspectives. Those dual perspectives allow individuals to understand their place within the environment and to express behaviors and cognitions that complement harmony between self and other. Self awareness is not a skill that is inherent within the human condition. To be sure, active self awareness comes only after conscious self reflection of the lived experience. Highest Scored Domain Item I am self monitoring. For example, I am constantly checking if I am where I want to be in my life and who I want to be. Score 75.6 Lowest Scored Domain Item I list my personal goals for a class or activity. For example, I list my learning goals for a class beyond the learning outcomes listed in the syllabus, as well as my goal for a grade. 52.4
Communications In academic circles, there are many definitions of the construct communication. Yet, most contemporary definitions share common themes within them, including: An active process where one person conveys a message to another through a variety of forms, including speaking, writing, or other non verbal cues. A process which may be intentional or unintentional. That different levels of communication exist depending on the relationship between the sender and the receiver. That it provides a means by which needs can be expressed from one person to another. That communication attempts to in some way impact the behavior of the other. Effective communication with others requires an understanding of the environment, relationship to the other, and how effective the symbols chosen for the expression of needs, wants, or perspective are in influencing behaviors. Highest Scored Domain Item I use supporting material for my presentations and papers. For example, I rely on reliable sources and references to help me make my points. Score 78.0 Lowest Scored Domain Item I make sure that when I am talking with someone I change my communication style to be consistent with their world view. For example, when speaking to someone who is devoutly religious I take that into account when I speak with them. 69.9 Diversity Diversity is an area of interest within higher education as it reflects an individual s understanding and appreciation of differences. Those differences include such things as the recognition of values held by different people, cultures, ethnicities, politics, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation and a host of others. The understanding and appreciation of difference is necessary to establish and maintain pluralism in a way that will be complementary to such phenomena as social responsibility, cohesion and advancement of social structures, the bolstering of individual and group identity, and equality and respect. But diversity goes beyond mere acceptance of difference, which in many cases may be only tolerance. Indeed, moving beyond simple tolerance to understanding allows individual members of a social group the capacity to appreciate the positive contribution different people can make to the collective good of that social group, whether limited to small groups of individuals or on a global scale. Highest Scored Domain Item I value differences between people as part of the overall human experience. For example, I know that we are not a melting pot where people who are different can come to be seen as all the same. I know that people are different and that these differences are important. Score 77.2 Lowest Scored Domain Item I can tell anyone what diversity is. For example, I have a standard answer when someone asks me about diversity. 66.4
Citizenship Citizenship entails an understanding of one s membership in a variety of groups, from the campus community to the global level, and a demonstrated commitment through behaviors that reflect active participation within those groups. Knowledge of the various rights, privileges, and associated duties of citizenship are things in which students should be actively engaged; whether those are of a political, social, or legal nature. Highest Scored Domain Item I am active in organizations related to professional and personal interests without overextending my commitments. For example, I belong to professional and hobby clubs and groups Score 71.3 Lowest Scored Domain Item I engage in the political process through voicing viewpoints. For example, I write letters to the editor, engage in debate with others, or contact political leaders to voice my opinion 56.0 Membership and An understanding of the various types of relationships students do and will experience is necessary as they identify with groups, whether those groups are formal or informal. Within groups, individuals should recognize how they can contribute and be active in their participation, whether that participation is the holding of a recognized office with prescribed duties, or a member that contributes to the common good through active participation that supports growth and development of the collective body. Highest Scored Domain Item I am a role model for others. For example, I am aware of how others see me and I act in ways that provide a positive example for others to follow Score 75.9 Lowest Scored Domain Item I engage in constructive dialog rather than arguments. For example, when I confront others I focus on minimizing a negative emotional response from people I m confronting 69.8
Interacting with others can be on a variety of levels including social, professional, intimate or others. An individual s ability to influence others, to contribute to the meeting of self needs as well as the needs of others and to form individual identity as a result requires active management. The ability to effectively manage the connectedness between self and others allows individuals to be more productive to their own internal growth and development as well as to positively contribute to the growth and development of others. Highest Scored Domain Item I balance keeping personal, social, and professional relationships healthy with the rest of my life. For example, I spend time on relationships and still get my school work done Score 79.1 Lowest Scored Domain Item I use effective networking skills. For example, I go out of my comfort zone to introduce myself to and establish and maintain an appropriate relationship with others, such as my professors and supervisors 67.0 BROAD AREA OF CONCER N BASED ON LOW SCORES Examination of the lowest scored items in each of the UniLOA s seven domains reveals low levels of behavior consistent with oral communications skills in six of the seven domains. Students low levels of oral communication behaviors may be a cause or an effect of passive learning in classrooms. Further study will indicate if students who are engaged in higher levels of active, participatory learning in the classroom have higher scores on oral communication items.
UNILOA NATIONAL DATA BASE SAMPLE MEANS BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC S Male Critical Thinking Self- Awareness National Means by Gender Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and n=6,572 74.27 69.66 72.90 69.95 67.21 72.06 70.91 Female n=11,314 73.50 73.30 76.21 71.71 65.13 73.33 73.29 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 Male Female *To better understand score differences by gender and ethnicity, please refer to the chart at the end of this report
National Means by Ethnicity Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 74.31 72.26 75.52 70.91 66.26 73.24 72.7 European- American (n=13,175) African- American (n=774) 70.58 69.10 71.13 69.92 63.44 69.66 69.49 Hispanic- American (n=780) 71.76 70.68 72.91 72.15 65.11 71.76 71.48 Asian and Pacific Island- American 72.92 70.57 73.55 73.15 64.14 71.39 71.28 (n=498) Native- American (n=327) 67.17 67.50 69.31 67.47 64.04 68.20 68.04 International (n=216) 67.78 65.52 67.91 67.69 63.42 67.65 67.00 Other (n=2189) 72.84 71.76 74.36 71.21 64.92 72.38 72.37
National Means by Ethnicity 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
National Means by Credit Hours Completed Critical Thinking Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 0-15 (n=3559) 72.02 70.48 73.64 70.06 63.37 70.99 71.30 16-30 (n=2664) 72.13 70.44 73.47 70.19 64.49 71.44 71.55 31-45 (n=2354) 73.42 71.94 74.39 71.00 66.41 72.61 72.21 45-60 (n=2140) 73.71 72.06 75.01 71.10 66.09 72.76 72.04 61-75 (n=2196) 74.44 72.58 75.43 71.17 66.44 73.54 72.71 76-90 (n=1577) 74.22 72.27 75.13 70.62 66.50 73.31 72.30 91-105 (n=1531) 74.60 72.70 75.78 71.40 67.32 73.98 73.03 106-120 (n=1891) 76.36 73.21 77.12 72.39 68.31 74.98 74.00
National Means by Credit Hours Completed 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
Critical Thinking National Means by Grade Point Average Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 0.0-0.5 n=76 53.39 51.57 53.39 53.87 51.54 53.59 52.41 0.51-1.0 n-116 59.79 57.84 62.89 59.84 58.66 59.99 62.16 1.01-1.5 n=110 64.80 61.92 63.06 63.21 59.58 63.83 63.96 1.51-2.0 (n=288) 67.44 65.69 67.71 66.53 61.68 65.70 66.20 2.01-2.50 (n=1294) 70.86 68.21 71.54 69.56 63.74 69.71 69.40 2.51-3.0 (n=3747) 73.03 70.64 73.48 70.89 65.94 72.15 71.70 3.01-3.5 (n=6338) 74.00 72.26 75.09 71.34 66.40 73.36 72.95 3.51-4.0 (n=6027) 75.12 73.75 77.14 71.59 66.17 74.01 73.42
National Means by Grade Point Average 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
Critical Thinking Self- Awareness National Means by Academic Program Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and Arts (n=1120) 73.65 71.13 74.30 71.60 65.46 72.18 71.70 Business (n=41042) 74.06 71.84 74.66 70.75 67.43 73.59 72.77 Education (n=1880) 72.35 72.77 75.53 71.14 64.88 72.77 72.98 Engineering (n=1136) 74.71 70.26 72.94 69.37 65.42 72.16 70.44 General Studies (n=732) 72.68 70.74 73.77 70.14 67.07 72.41 72.04 Health (n=2231) 72.58 73.46 75.18 70.82 63.54 72.38 72.33 Humanities (n=828) 74.50 70.44 75.45 71.78 68.30 72.82 72.17 Pre-Law (n=679) 75.50 72.78 75.33 71.32 72.38 74.25 73.19 Pre-Medicine or Dental (n=1044) 75.34 74.24 76.35 72.73 66.80 73.96 73.48 Recreation, Sports, Leisure (n=303) 70.50 70.21 72.31 70.23 63.61 71.12 71.55 Science (n=776) 74.74 71.19 74.81 70.56 64.20 72.27 71.49 Social Sciences (n=1342) 75.10 72.41 76.36 72.75 66.80 73.36 73.35 Technology (n=287) 73.02 69.56 73.11 69.37 64.95 71.90 70.59 Undeclared (n=869) 71.05 67.04 72.01 69.18 62.02 69.35 69.77
Arts Business Education Engineering General Studies Health Humanities Pre-Law Pre-Medical or Pre-Dental Recreation, Sports, and Science Social Sciences Technology Undeclared National Means by Academic Program 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
National Means by Organizational Affiliation Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 0 (n=3066) 71.58 69.39 73.21 68.63 61.13 69.03 69.85 1 (n=5413) 72.82 70.95 74.10 70.30 64.29 71.69 71.57 2 (n=4925) 74.55 72.90 75.59 71.78 67.23 74.02 73.13 3 (n=2504) 75.12 73.21 75.99 72.27 68.81 75.01 73.99 4 (n=1029) 75.46 73.72 76.31 73.07 70.11 75.35 74.17 5 (n=511) 74.05 73.28 75.42 72.07 69.85 74.84 73.35 6 (n=201) 73.52 71.46 74.18 71.94 69.30 74.42 72.54 7 n=224 75.09 73.24 75.30 73.13 71.17 76.01 74.86 8 n=69 70.81 70.03 72.86 71.67 69.51 74.07 71.74
National Means by Organizational Affiliation 80 Critical Thinking 75 Self-Awareness 70 65 60 55 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
National Means by Number of Offices Held Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 0 (n=10,332) 73.08 71.32 74.52 70.38 63.93 71.40 71.66 1 (n=4576) 74.79 72.74 75.70 72.07 68.19 74.70 73.44 2 (n=1719) 75.85 73.81 76.47 72.70 70.47 76.29 74.43 3 (n=569) 73.08 71.87 73.62 71.19 67.99 74.11 72.18 4 (n=284) 70.95 69.21 71.49 68.99 67.09 71.76 70.50 5 (n=174) 67.67 65.37 68.68 65.77 65.02 69.47 67.97
National Means by Number of Offices Held 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 0 1 2 3 4 5 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and
National Means by Pell Grant Status I have a Pell Grant (n=2786) Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 73.6 71.7 74.7 71.5 64.7 72.0 71.9 I do not have a Pell Grant 72.9 71.6 74.3 70.5 65.2 72.6 71.8 (n=15,613) National Means by Pell Grant Status 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 I have a Pell Grant I do not have a Pell Grant
National Means by Athletic Scholarship I have an athletic scholarship Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 70.6 69.0 71.5 68.8 63.0 69.9 69.4 (n=1093) I do not have an athletic scholarship 74.3 72.4 75.5 71.5 66.4 73.4 72.9 (n=17,306) National Means by Athletic Scholarship 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 I have an Athletic Scholarship I do not have an Athletic Scholarship
National Means by Veteran Status I have never served (n=16,585) Membership Critical Self- Communication Diversity Citizenship and Thinking Awareness 74.05 72.31 75.39 71.32 66.02 73.21 72.78 Discharged from active service 70.43 67.38 69.83 68.32 64.39 69.38 68.60 (n=705) I serve/served in the Reserve 69.36 65.85 68.11 65.64 63.23 67.27 66.13 (n=252) National Means by Veteran Status 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 Never Served Discharged from Active Service Serve/served in the Reserves
National Means by Hours per Week Studying Critical Thinking Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 2 or less (n=1010) 69.97 65.83 69.98 67.10 61.46 68.11 67.14 4 (n=2339) 72.08 68.93 73.30 69.23 63.48 70.42 70.08 6 (n=3122) 72.02 70.20 73.55 69.93 64.45 71.52 71.26 8 (n=3169) 73.33 71.59 74.77 71.19 66.01 72.85 72.49 10 (n=3020) 74.18 72.77 75.37 71.80 66.84 73.66 73.09 12 (n=1912) 74.33 72.79 75.48 71.33 66.61 73.66 73.27 14 (n=1194) 75.52 74.75 76.79 72.12 67.55 74.53 74.20 16 (n=426) 75.86 75.38 77.51 72.61 68.61 75.24 74.99 18 (n=823) 76.48 75.64 77.05 72.71 68.84 75.01 74.70 Over 18 (n=1132) 78.17 76.77 78.56 74.37 69.32 76.39 75.52
National Means by Hours per Week Studying 80 Critical Thinking 75 Self-Awareness 70 Communication 65 Diversity 60 Citizenship 55 50 2 or less 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Over 18 Membership and
National Means by Number of Hours per Week Watching Television or Online Entertainment Critical Thinking Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 2 or less (n=5123) 75.11 73.85 76.45 72.79 66.58 74.78 74.16 4 (n=3849) 73.77 72.46 75.19 71.36 66.26 73.22 72.84 6 (n=2901) 73.35 71.31 74.55 70.66 66.02 72.51 72.25 8 (n=2137) 72.99 70.51 73.60 70.26 65.58 71.59 71.17 10 (n=1675) 72.62 70.03 73.84 69.50 64.97 71.32 70.79 12 (n=880) 71.71 69.50 72.66 68.38 64.18 70.13 70.19 14 (n=544) 70.62 68.26 72.13 67.61 63.22 68.85 68.47 16 (n=356) 74.03 70.66 74.21 69.85 66.37 71.22 71.01 18 (n=184) 72.63 70.52 74.45 69.61 64.90 70.58 70.70 Over 18 (n=518) 72.31 69.35 72.94 68.52 64.27 70.01 69.24
National Means by Number of Hours per Week Watching Television 80 Critical Thinking 75 Self-Awareness 70 Communication 65 Diversity 60 Citizenship 55 50 2 or less 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Over 18 Membership and
National Means by Number of Hours Worked per Week Critical Thinking Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 2 or less (n=1010) 74.33 73.18 75.97 72.05 66.25 74.10 73.62 4 (n=2399) 73.36 70.99 74.10 70.45 65.61 71.99 71.61 6 (n=3122) 73.37 70.68 74.06 70.37 66.02 72.17 71.65 8 (n=3169) 72.84 70.38 73.39 69.93 65.26 71.44 70.92 10 (n=3020) 73.42 71.11 74.58 70.29 65.64 72.05 71.54 12 (n=1912) 72.88 71.13 73.92 70.18 65.65 71.66 71.51 14 (n=1194) 72.31 70.41 73.91 69.35 64.92 71.19 70.95 16 (n=823) 74.67 72.67 76.00 71.56 67.05 72.67 72.86 18 (n=426) 74.22 72.59 75.45 71.40 65.00 72.93 72.99 Over 18 (n=1132) 74.66 73.17 75.95 72.06 66.86 74.00 73.29
National Means by Number of Hours Worked per Week 78 76 Critical Thinking 74 72 Self-Awareness 70 Communication 68 66 Diversity 64 62 60 58 2 or less 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Over 18 Citizenship Membership and
National Means by Number of Volunteer Hours Served Critical Thinking Self- Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and 1 or less (n=7287) 72.57 70.47 74.10 68.97 62.56 70.70 70.78 2 (n=3835) 74.27 72.57 75.42 72.03 67.34 73.76 73.26 3 (n=2310) 74.34 72.79 75.26 72.28 68.18 74.10 73.39 4 (n=1658) 74.36 73.21 75.58 72.99 69.36 74.78 73.66 5 (n=894) 74.22 72.64 75.27 72.56 69.00 74.53 73.16 6 (n=583) 73.78 72.02 74.17 71.82 68.72 74.19 73.24 7 (n=291) 71.48 70.32 71.63 69.58 66.34 72.02 71.28 8 (n=295) 74.64 72.08 74.33 72.16 69.34 74.55 73.37
National Means by Number of Volunteer Hours Served 80 75 70 65 Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity 60 Citizenship 55 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Membership and
National Means by Membership in a College Fraternity In cooperation with 4 National Fraternities, data was gathered over a three year period for purposes if measuring the impact of fraternity membership. Results of that investigation are presented below. National Database Norm Male Non- Fraternity Student Means Critical Self- Membership Communication Diversity Citizenship Thinking Awareness and 69.65 69.84 73.60 67.32 57.23 68.31 69.16 73.48 68.19 72.42 67.52 62.48 69.21 68.61 All Fraternity Means 73.93 69.70 72.69 70.23 67.82 72.25 71.11 National Means by Membership in a College Fraternity 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 National Database Norm Male Non-Fraternity Student Means All Fraternity Means
RELATIVE GROWTH, LEA RNING AND DEVELOPMENT OVER THE ACADEMIC LIFESPAN: FRATERNIT Y MEMBERSHIP CONTRASTED TO NON -FRATERNITY MEMBERSHIP Critical Thinking Self-Awareness Communication Diversity Citizenship Membership and F NF F NF F NF F NF F NF F NF F NF 0-15 71.22 71.82 67.12 66.48 69.52 70.97 67.98 66.45 65.69 61.62 69.25 67.83 69.99 67.65 16-30 73.87 71.65 69.71 68.15 72.64 71.80 71.15 65.55 67.77 62.15 72.22 69.36 73.08 68.39 31-45 73.95 70.48 69.29 66.86 72.04 71.05 70.26 67.78 67.72 61.69 72.04 68.24 72.41 68.56 46-60 75.06 73.53 70.77 67.82 73.98 72.47 70.89 67.33 68.61 61.33 73.09 69.10 73.74 68.34 61-75 75.38 76.49 70.92 68.65 73.67 72.01 71.33 67.86 69.17 61.50 73.34 68.11 73.9 67.20 76-90 75.81 75.00 71.2 70.10 74.71 73.06 70.63 70.16 69.76 63.24 74.37 69.69 74.28 69.00 91-105 75.64 76.25 71.24 69.89 74.36 74.64 71.85 68.17 69.86 64.26 74 70.14 74.45 69.00 106-120 77.53 77.83 71.91 70.38 76.05 75.65 71.74 69.80 70.87 65.44 75.63 71.87 75.8 71.00 Change Over Time Net Difference between Fraternity and Non Fraternity members 6.31 6.01 4.79 3.9 6.53 4.68 3.76 3.35 5.18 3.82 6.38 4.04 5.81 3.35 +.30 +.89 +1.85 +.41 +1.36 +2.34 +2.46
ADDITIONAL GRAPHS BY COMBINATION OF DEMOG RAPHIC VARIABLES Domain Scores by Gender and Ethnicity 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 Female European- American Female African-American Female Hispanic-American Female Asian Pacific Island- American Female Native American Female International Student Male European-American Male African-American Male Hispanic-American
Selected Points in the Academic Lifespan (Credit Hours) by Gender 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 Female 0-15 Female 46-60 Female 91-105 Male 0-15 Male 46-60 Male 91-105 ---------END OF REPORT-----------