Out-of-class involvement provides students with opportunities for rich social lives which, according to Cheng (2004), are closely associated with sense of campus community. Based on Astin's (1984) Theory of Involvement, and Boyer's (1990) principles of community, the purpose of this study was to examine how involvement in out-of-class activities influences students' perceived sense of campus community. Three hundred and thirty respondents completed an on-line questionnaire which consisted of demographics and questions related to their out-of-class involvement in 14 areas as identified by the institutions' Dean of Students Office, and a 25-item sense of community scale developed by Cheng (2004). Out-of-class involvement levels were examined using a hierarchical cluster analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the sense of community scale. The six factors extracted from the EFA served as dependent variables and respondents' out of class involvement levels stemming from the cluster analysis were used to measure differences in perceived sense of campus community based on involvement using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance. Results generally indicate students with higher levels of participation in certain campus involvement areas have a significantly higher perceived sense of campus community within the following factors: teaching and learning, history and tradition, diversity and acceptance, residential experience, and loneliness and stress.
It is well-established that involvement in out-of-class activities enhances development and is a significant factor in retention (Tinto, 1993; Thomas, 2000). Student involvement and engagement in educationally purposeful activities is essential in developing a sense of campus community (Kinzie & Schuh, 2008). Brazzell and Reisser (1999) assert that "the greater the opportunity for students to participate in a range of activities, the more likely they are to feel a part of their community and to become productive contributors. Students who participate in student government, cocurricular clubs and activities, and fraternities and sororities are able to gain a greater understanding of the larger society" (p. 173). The benefits of a strong campus community are numerous. Boyer (1990) suggested that a strong campus community can define the "enduring values that undergird a community of learning" (p. 7). Accurate information about student engagement and involvement in various co-curricular activities, and how they contribute to the development of a sense of community, is important not only for student success and persistence, but also in informing the policy decisions of an institution as to how and where institutional resources should be allocated. In difficult economic times, it is essential that policymakers and administrators have information as to the types of campus activities that positively contribute to a strong sense of campus community. This information not only provides a focus of encouragement to increase student persistence and success, but also confirms that resources allocated to student activities are worthwhile institutional investments.
Student Involvement and Engagement
There are differences in the terms "involvement" and "engagement" depending on the nature of the research and the perspective of the researchers. However, for the purposes of this study, the terms involvement and engagement are used interchangeably. An interview with Alexander Astin supports this interchangeable use of terms when he states "there are 'no essential differences' between the terms engagement and involvement" (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009, p. 417). Research has shown the inextricable tie between student involvement or engagement and persistence. Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005) propose "what students do during college counts more for what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to college" (p. 8). Astin's Theory of Involvement (1984) posits that students learn more the more they are involved in the campus community. Kennedy (2000) found that even students with indicators contrary to persistence, were able to be successful because of social involvement on campus. Thomas (2000) suggested that students involved in activities that provided broader social networks were more likely to persist than students only involved within their peer group, thereby reinforcing the importance of involvement in activities that broaden the social network.
In addition to research on the broad concepts of engagement or involvement, there also has been research on involvement in specific activities and how that involvement impacts particular aspects of students' lives while in college (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Involvement in student activities can facilitate positive socialization (Pascarella, Terenzini & Wolfe, 1986), aid in the development of leaderships skills (Schuh & Laverty, 1983), and help to develop the capacity for mature interpersonal relationships (Hood, 1984). Literature suggests that participation in out-of-class activities can have a positive impact in both the short-term while in college and beyond the college experience. According to Astin (1993), "participating in intramural sports has substantial positive effects on physical health, alcohol consumption, and attainment of a bachelor's degree" (p. 386). Students' out-of-class involvement also provides students an opportunity for a rich social life which, according to Cheng (2004), is closely associated with students' sense of campus community.
Lloyd-Jones (1989) defined "community" as the binding together of individuals towards a common cause or experience. The publication of Ernest L. Boyer's "Campus Life: In Search of Community" (1990) spurred research on developing a sense of community on college campuses. According to Boyer, a college or university provides a strong sense of community if it is effective in providing six characteristics of a community: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring and celebrative. According to Tinto (1993), integration into social and academic life for students contributes to a greater sense of commitment to the university. A greater commitment to the university leads to a greater likelihood of persistence. In his seminal work on student departure from college, Tinto stated that college persistence is a process of students becoming competent members of social and academic communities. In order for institutions of higher education to successfully build a sense of campus community, a connection must exist between academic activities and co-curricular activities on campus. Members of the campus populations should accept obligations for membership since learning can often occur in a group while in a social setting (Hirt & Muffo, 1998). In addition, an institution seeking to build community should celebrate the history and traditions through shared rituals and celebrations while involving and educating students of these practices (Magolda, 2001).
Cheng (2004) examined the aspects of students' lives to identify items that contribute to the sense of community. Cheng found that students' sense of being cared about, valued as an individual, and being accepted as part of the community were most directly associated with a sense of community. The most negative influence on the sense of community came from feelings of loneliness. Though Cheng found a positive relationship between students' activities and sense of community, he suggested further study on the relationship between student activities and sense of campus community. The purpose of this study is to examine how out-of-class involvement influences students' perceived sense of campus community. In particular, the level of involvement and choice of out-of-class student activities will be used to examine differences in perceived sense of campus community.
Target Population and Sampling Methods
Participants were recruited from a student email address list obtained by the University Assessment Office at a midsize post-secondary institution in the Midwest. Based on almost 21,000 students attending this institution at the time of the study, 377 students were needed in order to have a representative sample (using the 95% confidence level and confidence interval of five). Hoping for a 25% response rate using an on-line survey, four times that amount (1508) were randomly selected using a stratified random sample to assure accurate representation from the student body based on their year in school. Each of the students randomly selected were sent an electronic mail message inviting them to participate in the study. If students completed the survey in its entirety, they were entered into a drawing for an opportunity to win one of five $20 gift cards from Best Buy.
The email message included a link to the informed consent website through StudentVoice--one of the country's leading assessment providers to higher education institutions. If the student agreed to participate after reviewing the informed consent page, s/he would click "accept" and the first item of the survey would be presented. Ali potential participants who had not responded to the survey received a reminder email message one and two weeks after the initial invitation to participate was sent. No additional emails were sent after the second reminder message.
After the initial three week data collection period, a total of 182 students (12.07%) completed the survey. In order to obtain a sample more representative of the student population, an additional 1508 students who had not already been contacted to participate in the study were emailed an email invitation to participate. After an additional three week data collection period, including email reminders to those who had not completed the survey, an additional 148 students completed the survey for a total sample of 330.
Instrument Development and Administration Participants completed an on-line questionnaire which consisted of demographic questions, questions related to their out-of-class involvement in 14 areas as identified by the institutions' Division of Student Affairs, and a 25-item sense of community scale developed by Cheng (2004), who had adopted some questions from Janosik's (1991) Campus Community Scale, "one of the very few comprehensive instruments based on Boyer's principles" (Cheng, p. 220). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of out-of-class involvement by using the following options: "Never", "Occasionally", "Often", or "Very Often". Respondents rated their level of agreement to the campus community statements using a four point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The instrument was pilot tested with a group of 25 students knowledgeable about the university due to their paraprofessional role as academic peer advisors. Students who completed the survey were asked to share comments or questions regarding survey content with one of the co-investigators, during which all participants indicated the survey was not confusing and that the questions were clear, understandable, and applicable to students on campus.
Levels of Involvement and Differences in Campus Community
Out-of-class involvement levels were examined using a hierarchical cluster analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the sense of community scale. The factors extracted from the EFA served as dependent variables and respondents' out of class involvement levels stemming from the cluster analysis were used to examine differences in perceived sense of campus community based on students' level of involvement in 14 campus program areas using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
Three hundred and thirty surveys were completed for a response rate of 10.94%. There were 232 females (70.3%) and 98 males (29.7%). Respondents had a mean age of 21.84 years (SD=5.0) with 209 students living off-campus (63.3%) and 121 students living on-campus (36.7%). There were 47 freshmen (14.2%), 68 sophomores (20.6%), 73 juniors (22.1%), 89 seniors (27.0%), 49 graduate students (14.8%), and four part-time students (1.2%). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (83.6%) with 32.7% of the respondents coming from the College of Arts and Sciences, 20.6% from the College of Education, 17.6% from the College of Applied Science and Technology, 13.9% from the College of Business, 7.6% from the University College (undeclared), 3.6% from the College of Fine Arts, and 3.9% indicated "Other".
Out-of-Class Involvement Levels
Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in 14 out-of-class involvement areas identified by the institutions' Division of Student Affairs using the following scale: "Never", "Occasionally", "Often", or "Very Often". At least 20 percent of respondents participated in: employment and internships, student organizations, athletic events, students clubs, and community service often or very often. At least 37 percent occasionally participated in conferences and workshops and fine arts. Whereas, 60 percent or more of respondents indicated that they had never participated in student government, study abroad, greek organizations, diversity advocacy programs, and university program board events. A more detailed summary of respondents' frequency of out-of-class involvement can be found in Table 1.
As subjects were asked to indicate how often they participated in 14 out-of-class involvement areas, a cluster analysis was conducted in an attempt to group subjects according to their out-of-class involvement. In doing so, subjects would be grouped in a way that would maximize within-group similarities (i.e., homogeneity), while subsequently maximizing between-group differences (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). With no a priori hypotheses in place concerning respondents' involvement levels, a hierarchical cluster analysis using a Ward's method of linkage and a squared Euclidian distance was initially conducted. This exploratory method of cluster analysis is recommended when one is initially unsure of the number of clusters associated with the data (Alenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). The accompanying dendogram suggested that three clusters of subjects were present.
In order to validate the three cluster hierarchical solution, a non-hierarchical k-means cluster analysis was conducted in which a three cluster solution was requested. The three cluster solution again appeared to be the most appropriate, with each cluster demonstrating adequate interpretability. The means and standard deviations of the clusters are provided in Table 2. Given the somewhat subjective nature of cluster analysis, the stability of the three cluster solution was further assessed by splitting the data set in half (N = 165) and re-running the analysis in order to ensure the validity and practical significance of the three cluster solution. When these results were compared with the subjects' original cluster categorizations, 97% of the subjects were classified correctly. Therefore, we are confident that we have established distinct and stable clusters according to respondents' out-of-class involvement.
Since the items in the cluster analysis measured students' level of out-of-class involvement using the same four-point Likert-scale ranging from Never to Very Often, (i.e., same level of measurement), the three clusters were found to represent overall involvement levels (e.g., low, medium, high). Cluster 1 (N = 114) represents subjects who are moderately involved in out-of-class activities, whereas Clusters 2 (N = 187) and 3 (N = 24) represent low and high levels of out-of-class involvement respectfully. An ANOVA was then conducted to ensure that significant differences did exist between the clusters and how often respondents participated in 14 out-of-class involvement areas. Significant differences were found between the clusters for all 14 out-of-class involvement areas. Upon examination of the post hoc analyses, the differences were in accordance with the cluster interpretation and in the hypothesized direction based on students' level of out-of-class involvement.
Sense of Campus Community
Respondents indicated their level of agreement to statements from the 25-item Sense of Campus Community Scale using a four point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The skewness values for the 25 items all fell within + 1.0 which is considered excellent for most psychometric purposes (George & Mallory, 2009). Ali but one of the skewness values were negative indicating a greater number of larger values and a slight negative skew for the distribution of the 25 campus community statements. All but three of the kurtosis values fell within +2.0, which is still acceptable according George and Mallory. However, the distribution for these three statements was more peaked than normal. The top three statements respondents most agreed to were: friends share my interests and values (M=3.20, SD=0.62), faculty are accessible to me when I seek their help (M=3.20, SD=0.66), and there are opportunities to interact with people from different backgrounds (M=3.15, SD=0.56). The three statements respondents disagreed most with were: the institution's traditions and celebrations play an important role in my life as a student (M=2.44, SD=0.78), I have felt lonely on campus (M=2.35, SD=0.95), and my social interactions are largely confined to students of my race/ethnicity (M=2.50, SD=0.82). Refer to Table 3 for the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis values for all of the sense of campus community items.
In order to examine the underlying factor structure of the sense of campus community scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the 25 statements. The EFA was conducted using all 330 subjects who completed this section of the survey, which provided a good to very good sample size for factor analysis (Comry & Lee, 1992). As all of the items were fairly normally distributed, a principle components extraction method was used in conjunction with a varimax rotation. This procedure is recommended when using data that meets multivariate normality (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). A factor loading cut-off of .50 was used to minimize the likelihood of items cross-loading and also to ensure that weak items were removed. The EFA produced a six-factor solution all with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that included 22 of the original 25 items and accounted for 56.69 percent of the variance (see Table 4). The statement "I feel accepted as part of the campus community" loaded on more than one factor. Two statements, "I am satisfied with the range of extracurricular activities and programs" and "I would seek/sought the assistance of Residential Program staff in case of an emergency" failed to reach the established loading criterion.
The first factor contained five items which was labeled Teaching and Learning. The second factor was also comprised of five items and was titled Residential Experience. The third factor included four items and was termed Diversity and Acceptance. The fourth factor contained three items and was labeled History and Tradition. The fifth factor consisted of only two items and was labeled Loneliness and Stress. The last factor contained three items and was titled Socialization Across Backgrounds. Item loadings ranged from the cut-off of .50 to .81 and appear to represent six independent underlying dimensions of students' sense of campus community.
Differences in Sense of Campus Community by Levels of Out-of-Class Involvement
Lastly, in order to determine if there were significant differences in students' sense of campus community by their level of out-of-class involvement, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. The six sense of campus community factors extracted from the EFA served as the dependent variables and respondents' out-of-class involvement (i.e., low, moderate, high) stemming from the cluster analysis was used as the independent variable. Results of an evaluation of assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and the homogeneity of variance covariance matrices were satisfactory.
The overall multivariate test of group differences was significant [Pillai's trace = .172, F (12,526) = 4.11, p [less than or equal to] .001, partial eta-squared = .086, power = 1.0] indicating that the adjusted linear combination of dependent variables (DVs) were significantly affected by the level of respondent's out-of-class involvement (i.e., low, moderate, high). Tests of between-subjects effects indicated that there were significant differences for the following sense of campus community factors based on students' level of out-of-class involvement: teaching and learning (F = 5.15, p = .006, partial eta squared = .04, power = .82), residential experience (F = 3.03, p = .05, partial eta squared = .02, power = .58), diversity and acceptance (F = 8.50, p < .001, partial eta squared = .06, power = .97), and history and tradition (F = 19.77, p < .001, partial eta squared =. 13, power = 1.0). Analysis of the follow-up post-hoc tests indicated that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. Students who had moderate or high out-of-class involvement levels rated teaching and learning and history and tradition higher compared to those whose out-of-class involvement was low. Students who were highly involved in out-of-class activities scored higher on the diversity and acceptance factor when compared to those with low or moderate levels of out-of-class involvement and higher on the history and tradition factor when compared to those moderately involved in out-of-class activities.
We were also interested in determining whether or not there were any significant differences in students' perceived sense of campus community based on whether or not they participated in the 14 specific areas of out-of-class involvement. A MANOVA was conducted using the 14 out-of-class involvement areas (recoded into l=never participate, 2=participate at least occasionally) as the independent variables and the six sense of campus community factors extracted from the EFA. Results of an evaluation of assumptions of normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were satisfactory. However, the Box's test of equality of covariance matrices could not be computed because there were fewer than two nonsingular cell covariance matrices. Results indicated that students who participated in campus recreational sports programs scored significantly higher on the residential experience factor (F = 9.16, p = .003, partial eta-squared = .04, power = .85) and significantly lower on the loneliness and stress factor (F = 7.15,p = .008, partial eta-squared = .03, power = .76) compared to students who never participate. Students who participated in conferences and workshops scored significantly higher on the teaching and learning factor (F = 12.05, p = .001, partial eta-squared = .05, power = .93) compared to students who never participate. Students who participated in fine arts scored significantly higher on both the teaching and learning (F = 4.66, p = .032, partial eta-squared = .02, power = .58), and residential experience factor (F = 4.21, p = .041, partial eta-squared = .02, power = .53) compared to students who never participate. Lastly students who participated in faith development/spirituality activities (F = 4.79, p = .030, partial eta-squared = .02, power = .59) or intercollegiate athletic events (F = 19.84, p < .001, partial eta-squared = .07, power = .99) scored significantly higher on the history and tradition factor compared to students who never participate.
Summary and Discussion
According to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006), "students who belong to an affinity group or take responsibility for student activities become invested in the activity and more committed to the college and their studies" (p. 3). The benefits of student involvement in campus activities as related to student success in college are well documented in the literature. The purpose of this study was to further examine the influence of activity involvement differences in perceived sense of campus community based on both level of involvement and choice of out-of-class activities.
Using the Campus Community Scale modified by Cheng (2004), factor analyses produced a six-factor solution of campus community: Teaching and Learning, Residential Experience, Diversity and Acceptance, History and Tradition, Loneliness and Stress, and Socialization Across Backgrounds. These six dimensions of campus community were consistent with Cheng's study, but did not include two from his eight-factor solution: Open Environment and Friendship. The difference in the number of factors is not surprising considering the unique nature of different campus cultures. Student affairs professionals interested in assessing community on their own campus should recognize that factors that emerged as contributing to community in this study may not be the same factors that contribute to the sense of community on every campus.
Results of cluster analyses grouped involvement into three categories: low, moderate, and high. Responses to items within the six community factors were examined for differences based on level of involvement. The students who were moderately or highly involved in student activities perceived a greater sense of campus community in the Teaching and Learning factor than those who had lower levels of involvement. This supports the seminal argument that students learn outside the classroom as well as inside the classroom (Astin, 1984). This research suggests that, in addition to contributing to student learning, high levels of involvement in students activities contribute to a sense of campus community. Additionally, students who were highly involved in student activities perceived a greater sense of campus community in History and Tradition when compared to those who had moderate or low levels of involvement. This research suggests that the more involved students are, the more likely they are to learn about the history and traditions of their campus. It is reasonable to assume that the knowledge of campus history and traditions gained from high levels of involvement in student activities may contribute to a greater sense of campus community.
Involvement in specific activities
Participants in conferences and workshops and in fine arts activities perceived a stronger sense of community in Teaching and Learning factor than those who never participated in these program areas. This stronger sense of community could be due, in part, to a high level of student/faculty interaction for students who participate in conferences, workshops, or fine arts activities. Students involved in these activities are likely to interact with their faculty in research projects and/or faculty likely serve as directors or consultants for fine arts productions such as recitals or gallery showings. The National Survey of Student Engagement (Annual Report 2007) data consistently shows that faculty interaction is very important to engagement and that "high impact" practices that enhance student-faculty research and collaboration put students in a position to succeed. Astin's (1993) work found strong positive correlations between student-faculty interaction and almost every academic attainments outcome, intellectual and personal growth, and behavioral outcome indicating the importance of student-faculty interaction embedded in the Teaching and Learning factor. Previous research suggests that the development of campus community must be built around teaching and learning activities including collaboration among faculty, staff, and students (Borden & Gentemann, 1993; Brown, Brown & Littleton, 2002). This study reinforces those findings in that high levels of involvement in teaching and learning practices contribute to a greater sense of community.
Participants in campus recreational sports activities and participants in fine arts activities perceived a greater sense of campus community in the Residential factor when compared to students who never participated in these programs. Moreover, those who participated in campus recreational sports activities had significantly lower feelings of loneliness and stress when compared to those who never participated. This finding suggests that participation in campus recreational sports had a positive impact on student interaction. Campus recreational sports programs provide a powerful medium for student interaction (Belch, Gebel & Mass, 2001). Involvement in campus recreational sports programs and facilities can contribute to the creation of positive campus cultures and healthy, high social interaction among students, who do not achieve this in and of themselves (Chen, 2002). The importance of this type of student-to-student interaction has been clearly established by Astin (1993). In particular, Astin found that participation in intramural sports had positive effects on student life and overall college experience.
Previous research suggests that those who live in residence halls have a better opportunity to develop an attachment to the university through involvement in student activities (Astin, 1999). However, the literature does not indicate why there would be a strong connection between the Residential factor and fine art or campus recreation activities. Student Affairs professionals responsible for these areas should conduct further studies to better understand these findings as they are not readily supported in the literature. The institution at which the research was conducted has vibrant themed living-learning communities, including one for Wellness and one for the Fine Arts as well as a two-year residency requirement. We can surmise that participation in these programs contributes to a greater sense of campus community because of vibrant living-learning communities and a strong residential community. Further investigation of the impact of living-learning activities or residential requirements is necessary to better understand its unique contribution to students' perceived sense of campus community.
Participants in intercollegiate athletics activities perceived a greater sense of campus community in the History and Tradition factor. Thornton and Jaeger (2007) found that rituals and ceremonies of a campus can have a deep impact on student learning. While it is not surprising that those involved in intercollegiate athletics develop an appreciation for the traditions and rituals of an institution, there is limited research that investigates this connection between intercollegiate athletics and traditions of an institution. In addition, there is no evidence as to the impact of this involvement on community-building.
Participants in faith-based activities also perceived a greater sense of campus community in the History and Tradition factor. According to Lindholm (2007), students who are involved in faith-based activities are more likely to feel a strong connection to others, be involved in charitable activities, seek to understand other cultures, and exhibit a stronger ethic of caring. This study also suggests that faith-based activities contribute to a stronger sense of campus community. There is limited research in faith-based activities that ties involvement in this area to History and Tradition. Because this study indicates that participation in these activities can contribute to a sense of community in History and Tradition, these are areas that warrant further research.
When interpreting these findings, it is important to note the limitations associated with the study. While the overall reliability of the benefits scale was quite high, the internal consistency of the six campus community factors was inconsistent. Although the sample size was relatively robust in this study, caution is advised when attempting to generalize the results beyond the sample in this study due to the low response rate and because of the possibility of a non-response bias. Furthermore, subjects were drawn from only one institution and consisted of a higher proportion of females when compared to the entire study body. Studies using multiple institutions would help to increase the generalizability of the results. Future research should also focus on specific out-of-class involvement areas (i.e., campus recreational sports participation) in order to more closely examine the influence of this involvement on students' sense of cam-
pus community. It is also important to note that while the power was relatively high, the effect sizes were quite weak. This suggests that student affairs professionals should be more intentional when planning and implementing institution directed outof-class activities in order to increase students' sense of campus community.
The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of out-of-class involvement on students' perceived sense of campus community. The results provide valuable information for student affairs professionals in determining how to focus programming or opportunities for student involvement so that students' involvement in these targeted activities can contribute to a sense of community. On a practical level, the results suggest involvement contributes to a sense of community, but does so in a targeted way. For example, if a campus is lacking in traditions and history, this study suggests that student affairs professionals may want to take advantage of programming surrounding intercollegiate athletics as a means for enhancing the sense of community through tradition and history. Rather than taking an approach to developing a sense of campus community by looking at community on the macro level, the results of this study suggest that student affairs professionals should focus of the specific areas of campus life that make up the whole that is the campus community. Student activity involvement should be developed with an understanding of how this involvement contributes to an overall sense of campus community.
Aldenderfer, M., & Blashfield, R. (1984). Cluster analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series No. 44.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25,297-308.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Belch, H. A., Gebel, M., & Maas, G. M. (2001). Relationship between student recreation complex use, academic performance, and persistence of first-time freshmen. NASPA Journal, 38(2), Art. 5. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://publications.naspa.org/nas pa journal/vol38/iss2/art5.
Borden, V. M. H., & Gentemann, K. (1993). Campus community and student priorities at a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360920).
Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. A Special Report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brazzell, J.C. and Reisser, L. (1999). Creating inclusive communities. In G.S Blimling & E.J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, C.E., Brown, J.E., & Littleton, R.A. (2002). A lab without walls: A team approach to creating community. In W.M. McDonald & Associates (Eds.), Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyer's legacy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, C. C. (2002). The impact of recreation sports facilities on university student's social interaction and campus culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Incarnate Word.
Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students' sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do about it. NASPA Journal, 41(2), Art. 2. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol 41/iss2/art2.
Comrey, L, & Lee, H. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, R. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4,272-299.
George, D. & Mallory, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 16.0 Update. Boston, MA: Pearson Education lnc.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Hirt, J. B., & Muffo, J. A. (1998) Graduate students: Institutional climate and disciplinary cultures. In K. Bauer (Ed.), Campus climate: Understanding the critical components of today's colleges and universities. (New Direction for Institutional Research, no. 98.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hood, A.A. (1984). Student development: Does participation affect growth? ACU-I Bulletin, 52(6), 16-19. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255105).
Janocik, S. (1999). The campus community scale. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
Kennedy, P., Sheckley, B., & Kehrhahn, M. (2000, May). The dynamic nature of student persistence: Influence of interactions between student attachment, academic adaptation, and social adaptation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for International Research, Cincinnati, OH.
Kinzie, J. and Schuh, J.H. (2008). DEEP colleges and universities as communities. NASPA Journal, 45(3), 406-424.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters to student success: A review of literature. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Website: http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_ ExecSumm.pdf
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. and Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Lindholm, J. A (2007). Spirituality in the academy: Reintegrating our lives and the lives of our students. About Campus, 12(4), 10-17.
Lloyd-Jones, E. (1989). Foreword. In M.J. Barr and M.L. Upcraft (Eds.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community. (New Direction for Student Services, no. 48). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Magolda, P. (2001). What our rituals tell us about community on campus: A look at the campus tour. About Campus, 5(6), 2-8.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success (Annual Report 2007). Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_ 2007_Annual_Report/
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Volume 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., & Wolfe, L. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155-175.
Schuh, J. H. & Laverty, M. (1983). The perceived long-term influence of holding a significant student leadership position. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(1), 28-32.
Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2hd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Thomas, S. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student integration and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591-615.
Thornton, C. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2007). A new context for understanding civic responsibility: Relating culture to action at a research university. Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 993-1020.
Wolf-Wendal, L., Ward, K., Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development 50(4), 407-428.
DANIEL J. ELKINS
Illinois State University
SCOTT A. FORRESTER
AMELIA V. NOEL-ELKINS
Illinois State University
Table 1 Frequency of Responses for Out-of-Class Involvement Levels Involvement Area Never Occasionally Campus Recreational Sports programs 200 82 Community service 110 144 Conferences and workshops 143 143 Diversity Advocacy programs 240 71 Employment and internships 101 74 Faith development/spirituality 199 79 Fine arts 148 123 Greek Organizations 269 27 Athletic Events 99 132 Registered Student Organizations 120 96 Student Clubs 169 82 Student Government 277 35 Study abroad 274 26 University Program Board Events 203 83 Involvement Area Often Very Often Campus Recreational Sports programs 30 13 Community service 55 16 Conferences and workshops 33 6 Diversity Advocacy programs 8 6 Employment and internships 61 89 Faith development/spirituality 26 21 Fine arts 29 25 Greek Organizations 6 23 Athletic Events 71 23 Registered Student Organizations 66 43 Student Clubs 52 22 Student Government 6 7 Study abroad 14 11 University Program Board Events 27 12 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations (S.D.) for Out-of-Class Involvement Clusters Clusters Low Moderate High Campus Recreational 1.35 (0.67) 1.82 (0.94) 1.96 (0.86) Sports programs Community service 1.60 (0.65) 2.24 (0.81) 3.04 (0.75) Conferences and workshops 1.53 (0.64) 1.78 (0.68) 2.62 (0.82) Diversity Advocacy 1.13 (0.34) 1.44 (0.68) 2.29 (0.91) programs Employment and 2.18 (1.18) 2.57 (1.12) 3.67 (0.64) internships Faith development/ 1.33 (0.65) 1.92 (1.07) 2.12 (0.85) spirituality Fine arts 1.53 (0.84) 2.09 (0.86) 2.33 (0.92) Greek Organizations 1.18 (0.60) 1.44 (0.94) 2.00 (1.29) Athletic Events 1.79 (0.78) 2.33 (0.90) 2.83 (0.92) Registered Student 1.40 (0.57) 2.96 (0.76) 3.50 (0.51) Organizations Student Clubs 1.26 (0.51) 2.28 (0.89) 3.42 (0.72) Student Government 1.04 (0.22) 1.24 (0.49) 2.42 (1.18) Study abroad 1.14 (0.50) 1.43 (0.87) 1.46 (0.88) University Program Board 1.28 (0.61) 1.70 (0.83) 2.67 (0.82) Events Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations (S.D.), Skewness and Kurtosis for Sense of Campus Community Items Item M (S. D.) Skewness Kurtosis Students care about each other 2.94 (.49) -.30 1.68 I feel valued as a person at 2.92 (.66) -.72 1.41 this institution I feel accepted as part of the 3.03 (.65) -.78 1.86 campus community Faculty care about students 3.10 (.64) -.64 1.51 Programs effectively foster 2.93 (.57) -.44 1.36 positive relationships among different cultural communities Living in residence halls has 2.68 (.88) -.33 -0.53 raised my awareness of campus resources The institution's traditions 2.44 (.78) -.02 -0.42 and celebrations play an important role in my life as a student I have felt lonely on campus 2.35 (.95) +.10 -0.92 My experience living in 2.76 (.86) -.46 -0.33 residence halls has been/was positive There is/was opportunity to 3.04 (.82) -.72 0.24 interact with other people in your residence hall Different cultural communities 2.60 (.68) -.39 0.01 participate in each other's events RAs help/helped to lead the 2.64 (.80) -.41 -0.24 community in my residence halls There is an environment for 2.99 (.59) -.51 1.64 free and open expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs I am satisfied with the range 3.05 (.62) -.48 1.24 of extracurricular activities and programs Students and faculty are 3.07 (.55) -.46 2.46 engaged in teaching and learning Faculty are accessible to me 3.20 (.66) -.68 1.11 when I seek their help There are opportunities to 3.15 (.56) -.20 1.07 interact with people from different backgrounds I am/was satisfied with the 2.63 (.74) -.53 0.04 programs and activities in the residence halls There is a clear sense of 2.90 (.71) -.73 1.00 appropriate and inappropriate behavior I would seek/sought the 2.80 (.85) -.68 0.05 assistance of Residential Program staff in case of an emergency I am proud of this 3.08 (.59) -.62 2.27 institution's history and heritage Friends share my interests and 3.20 (.62) -.50 1.11 values I am satisfied with the 3.04 (.58) -.63 2.30 overall quality of instruction I often felt under a lot of 2.94 (.81) -.32 -0.55 stress during my time at this institution My social interactions are 2.50 (.82) -.20 -0.50 largely confined to students of my race/ethnicity Table 4 Factor Loadings and Eigenvalues for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation for Sense of Campus Community Scale: Six-Factor Solution Factor and Items Factor Loading 1. Teaching and Learning (eigenvalue = 5.96) I feel as valued a person at this institution .54 Faculty care about students .80 Students and faculty are engaged in teaching and .78 learning Faculty are accessible to me when 1 seek their help .76 I am satisfied with the overall quality of .62 instruction 2. Residential Experience (eigenvalue = 2.91) Living in residence halls has raised my awareness of .75 campus resources My experiente living in residence halls has been/was .80 positive There is/was opportunity to interact with other .79 people in your residence hall RAs help/helped to lead the community in my .65 residence halls I am/was satisfied with the programs and activities .77 in the residence halls 3. Diversity and Acceptance (eigenvalue = 1.60) Programs effectively foster positive relationships .50 among different cultural communities There is an environment for free and open expression .65 of ideas/opinions/beliefs There is a clear sense of appropriate and .55 inappropriate behavior Friends share my interests and values .62 4. History and Tradition (eigenvalue = 1.48) Studems tare about each other .54 The institution's traditions and celebrations play an important role in my life as a student .61 I am proud of this institution's history and .67 heritage 5. Loneliness and Stress (eigenvalue = 1.20) I have felt lonely on campus .65 I often felt under a lot of stress during my time at .81 this institution 6. Socialization Across Backgrounds (eigenvalue = 1.03) Different cultural communities participate in each .69 other's events There are opportunities to interact with people from .58 different backgrounds My social interactions are largely confmed to .60 students of my own rate/ethnicity