El caso especial de los grupos empresariales

After receiving ethics approval, data was collected via a questionnaire. A questionnaire was specifically designed for this study since the NSSE instrument does not collect some data of interest for this study. For example, this study collected data on housing preferences, which NSSE does not include. In addition, NSSE only surveys first- and fourth-year students. NSSE results show noticeably higher rates of satisfaction and engagement in fourth-year compared to first-year (yorku.ca/factbook). Given that many students who live in residence at York

University do not do so for all four years of their studies (upper year students often rent accommodation near campus, commonly with friends from residence), it was not desirable to limit the data to only first- and fourth-year students’ responses. The questionnaire, titled The

Student Engagement and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Appendix A), included items regarding each component of the Input-Environment-Outcome model.

There were 46 questions in the online version of the questionnaire. Questions 1 through 6 were informed consent and confirmation of the required conditions of being an undergraduate student at York University and at least 18 years of age. The questions numbered 2, 5, and 6 were not actually questions, but rather text to inform students that the questionnaire was ending since the participant responded negatively to the consent or condition questions. Thus the first question that began gathering data in the questionnaire was question 7.

Questions 7 through 9 were three of the seven questions that addressed the Environment component of I-E-O. Questions 25, 26, 31 to 34 were the remaining environment questions. These questions were purposely not listed together, to avoid participants perceiving that the data would be used to compare commuters to residents. These seven questions addressed location of residence and implications of commuting, such as amount of time spent commuting, as well as preferred and future expected location of housing.

Question 7 asked how much time was spent commuting. Responses to this question were used to determine resident and commuter groups. As well, information on how much time was spent travelling for school was one variable considered in this study. Half-hour segments were given as response options for this question. This short time frame was chosen to be able to consider if there was a difference for different lengths of time, and also to ensure that very short commute times, such as students who could walk to campus, were captured. This was in line with a distinction used by Kuh, Gonyea and Palmer (2001) between walking and driving commuters. Question 8 used a five-point always-to-never scale, to determine methods of transportation. Questions 25 and 26 used finite time scales in three-hour segments asking time

spent at off-campus job and volunteer work. This three-hour segment was deemed to be appropriate based on the context of the questions (i.e. hours at off-campus job and volunteer work). Questions 31 through 34 had categorical answers regarding locations of housing. The categories were created based on knowledge of the context, to include the most common housing options.

Academic engagement, one of the outcomes in this study, was addressed next through sixteen items, concerning amount of classes attended and time spent on homework (questions 10 through 16, 18c, 18d, 18h, 20a, and 20c). Questions 15, 18, and 20 were array questions, and have thus been renumbered into separate variables using the letter following the question number (e.g. 15a). All variables within question 15 (i.e. a – e) were related to academic engagement. Questions 18 and 20 asked what types of activities students spent their time doing, and where students spent their time, respectively. Some of these activities and locations contributed to academic engagement and others to social engagement outcomes.

A four-point scale was used for question 10: had the student found their courses

interesting. This was intentionally chosen to not have a neutral, middle option. The remainder of the academic engagement questions asked about how students were spending their time. The decision was made to use students’ own perceptions of the portion of their time devoted (i.e. always-to-never rating scales) to activities in many cases, rather than asking for specific counts of hours, for some, but not all, questions. I felt that this was an appropriate way to measure some aspects of engagement as I conceptionalized it, since what individuals perceive a significant amount is more important in this context than actual amounts of time. The construct of

engagement includes more than just the amount of time dedicated to an activity; it also includes the concept of effort and quality of time. Rather than asking for the number of hours spent,

querying proportions of time (e.g. never to always) gives participants the ability to weight, if even subconsciously, their responses based on what that activity meant to them. For example, two students could both respond that they spent time frequently doing extracurricular activities. One of those students could spend 20 hours in a week on extracurriculars, while the other spent 5 hours per week. The actual amount of time was less important than the students’ perception of the significance of the quantity of time. Formatting the responses in this way also compensated for circumstantial differences between students. For example, some programs of study, such as lab-based sciences and studio-based fine arts, typically involve more in-class time than other programs. It was of more interest whether a student attended all of their assigned classes rather than how many hours were spent in class. However, it was recognized that gathering data this way could be problematic in terms of interpretation of the results, since it was perceptions rather than actual amounts of time, as well as being self-reported, that were being compared. That being said, questions such as time doing homework (13) and time on-campus (17) did give finite time ranges as options.

Questions 11, 12, and 14 used five-point always-to-never or all-to-none scales. Questions 15 and 16 used a four-point frequently-to-never scale. In some cases, it was more appropriate to use a finite time scale. As stated above, questions 13 and 17, hours spent doing school work and time on-campus, used the finite time scale in three-hour ranges. Three-hour ranges were deemed to be appropriate for the context, and also allowed consistency with other question response options.

The second outcome considered was the social aspects of student engagement, or social engagement. Nine items queried this (questions 18a, 18b, 18e-g, 20b, 22 through 24). Question 18b queried time spent not socially engaged, and thus could be considered as a reverse coded

question. Questions 18 and 20 used five-point always-to-never scales, as in the academic engagement questions. Questions 19 and 21 were free text options for participants to list other on-campus activities. A yes/no response option was given for questions 22 through 24. These questions query student participation in university clubs, varsity sports teams, and student

government. Straightforward participation in these activities could be used as a dummy variable, allowing for a simple comparison of groups. Further, similar to the logic for some academic engagement questions, the actual number of hours spent was deemed to be less relevant than the perception of the overall level of participation in the activity. In other words, we can find out more about a student’s engagement from being a member of a varsity team, regardless of whether they spend 10 or 20 hours involved with the team per week. These three questions are examples of data not collected in the NSSE instrument. All questions in this outcome considered activities done on-campus.

Student satisfaction, the final outcome considered, was addressed through four items (questions 27 through 30). Question 27, enrolment in the academic program of preference, offered a yes/no response option. A four-point scale was used for question 28, plan to continue studying at the same institution the next year. This was intentionally chosen so as not to have a neutral, middle option. Questions 29 and 30, evaluate experience at this university and would student return if starting again, were adopted from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2010, with the word “institution” changed to “university” to better reflect the specific context of this study. The results to these two NSSE questions are mandated in Ontario to be published as Common University Data Ontario (CUDO) results and are also included in the Maclean’s and Globe and Mail university rankings publications.

Ten items addressed the Inputs component of the I-E-O model. Eight of these items considered demographic information (e.g. gender, age, parental levels of education) (questions 35 to 42, 45), and two questions asked about the academic characteristics of current program and year of study (questions 43 and 44). Question 35 was also adopted from NSSE 2010, with modifications to reflect the Canadian post-secondary system. A yes/no response option was given for questions 36, 37, and 40. Examples of these questions include visible minority and disability characteristics. Question 38 asked about respondents’ year of birth, and question 39 asked about respondents’ gender. Questions 41 and 42 were free text options asking about location of permanent residence, specifically postal code for Canadian residents and country of residence for non-Canadians. Question 43 asked participants what their program of study was, and question 44 asked about year-level of study. Question 45 asked about education background prior to this institution, and thus had categorical answer options.

All questions using the frequency scale (e.g. always to never) displayed the response options from most often (i.e. always) to least often (i.e. never). Similarly, questions with definitely yes to definitely no, and excellent to poor scales, displayed the definitely yes or excellent option first. These responses were each recoded to reverse the order of response options. Thus, the lowest frequency or least positive option has a value of 1, while the highest frequency or most positive option had the highest value. The results reported are based on these reversed values.

The questionnaire was circulated for feedback amongst classmates in a Research Methods (in Education) course. It was reviewed by both members of my thesis supervisory committee. It was pilot tested with a number of undergraduate students, and revised based on feedback, to improve it. For example, I had considered asking for student identification

numbers, so that I could match responses to academic records. The vast majority of students asked about this expressed discomfort, and thus it was not included. Other feedback was regarding the potentially biasing of responses to overcome the negative stigma of being a

commuter. Due to this, the question order was changed so that the location of housing questions were not together at the beginning of the questionnaire, along with the questionnaire title and introductory text, to remove cues that the study would be comparing commuters to residents. As well, the wording in many questions and responses was revised due to feedback from the pilot tests.