Underpinned by the belief that positive conditions, and supports, are associated with improved outcomes (Glover et al., 2002; Hawkins & Catalano, 1997); the CTC and GH constructs, as outlined in Figure 4.1, have a shared interest in the broader context of students’ lives, as well as identifying school strengths, challenges and priorities to influence the positive outcomes in adolescents.
71
While the construct of connectedness is a shared focus with the GH research, the instrumentation phase was not intended to replicate the GHP research in a tertiary setting. In this research the internal review (Step 2 of GHP) continues into Phase 2 and includes the gathering of personal and support information from the student majority, which is lacking to this point. In addition, a variety of demographic information would also be collected to inform about the broader context of students’ lives/needs, an important focus of the CTC framework, that might assist specific student cohorts in future strategies.
If there is any chance of refocusing or improving the current climate university student support it is necessary to ‘assess where you are now and where you hope to be in the future and measure the dissonance between the two points’ (Frieberg, 1999, p. 214). As such, the development of a Tertiary Student Connectedness Survey (TSCS) informed by the literature (Blum, 2005; Karcher et al., 2008; Libbey, 2004; Resnick et al., 1997) and guided by the GHP construct introduced in Chapter 3 was considered essential to assess a range of both low and elevated supports.
Chapter 5 introduces the Instrumentation and details the development of a Tertiary Student Connectedness Survey (TSCS). This development was assisted by the literature review and the involvement of a campus forum, a working party and a student focus group. These ‘readiness’ activities, which parallel the review processes represented in steps 1 and 2 of the Gatehouse Project (GHP) approach are essential in assisting the process of understanding local context, issues and prioritiesand to guide supportive conditions.
4.2.1 Instrumentation
Although the literature review revealed existing connectedness surveys (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Lee & Robbins, 2000) the decision to create a new survey reflecting the ecology of connectedness (Karcher et al., 2008) and behaviour data for a local university context was undertaken. The decision to develop a specific instrument is not an uncommon practice (Bollinger & Inan, 2012; Creasey, Jarvis & Gadke, 2009; Agu et al., 2010; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Rovai, 2002; Terrell et al., 2009) given the complex interplay of sometimes unique factors within a local environment, and the involvement of a wide variety of university personnel to support initiatives. Thus, in the early part of this research, such extensive involvement was necessary in order to gather an overview of the expertise and insight regarding student support and student success concerns across a variety of university sectors. Subsequent to the completion of this survey, the decision to establish of a smaller designated
72
working committee represented a significant period of consolidation which is essential to establishing community commitment but was previously under-represented in university connectedness research.
Furthermore it was found that the development of this connectedness tool served to confirm or challenge understandings and built commitment and belief in the activities of the working group which informed and refined the scope of the project. In this research, involvement of the working party will be a constant companion in phases 1-4 of the research process, as facilitated by the researcher.
4.2.2: Pilot Activities and Analysis
Pilot activities are undertaken for a variety of reasons; perhaps to test an instrument (Bollinger & Inam, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2002), or to gather of a range of evidence to support initiatives (Creasey et al., 2009; Agu et al., 2012; Rosenthal et al., 2007; Rovai, 2002; Terrell, Snyder & Dringus, 2009. Indeed, to access the GHP construct (steps 1 and 2), as shown in Figure 4.1, it was necessary to investigate and review local information which was initially lacking in this instance. For any institution that prides itself on being student- centered, this equates to collecting and analysing context-specific student data to gauge the health of their supportive environment, profile student life and to create awareness of strengths and issues.
In this research, the pilot activities represent an exploratory research design to profile first year student connectedness sources and levels, and to establish baseline academic and well- being behaviours of students. The availability of site specific data has been essential to inform improvements in other university connectedness research (Conger & Plager, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Lee & Robbins, 2000; Agu et al., 2010; Pascarella et al., 2004; Penman & White, 2006; Summers et al., 2002; Tao et al., 2000). In addition, the test-retest analysis, based on two data collections 4-5 weeks apart, provided an opportunity to evaluate item reliability, assisted in its refinement, reduced the length of the survey, and assessed the level of data stability. This work was essential to assist with the design of an inclusive student support initiative. Early investment in these readiness activities (instrumentation and pilot), sharing the understanding of essential issues, resources, hurdles, program gaps and possibilities serves, parallel GHP activities and create an important reserve capacity when preparing and planning for priorities to assist improvement.
73
Chapter 6 details the Pilot activities of the second phase includes result analyses of the GHP (steps 1 and 2) construct in Table 4.1 is a shared focus of attempting to understanding key issues in connectedness. In this current research, the pilot activities are used to address the first research question regarding the relevance of university student connectedness information and its association to student wellbeing and academic behaviours. Knowledge about levels and stability of student connectedness, health and well-being behaviour will assist to confirm or challenge our understanding about existing assets and opportunities for student support improvement.
This pilot chapter includes details of whole group data collection, survey distribution and the collection of two waves of data to (i) establish survey item reliability, (ii) determine levels and sources of connectedness, (iii) document well-being and academic behaviour norms, and (iv) to monitor the stability of connectedness and behaviours over time. Overall, the pilot chapter assisted the working party to refine the initial survey for the intervention phase introduced in Chapter 7, and to identify student support priorities; both are essential to position the researcher and working party to guide the development of an inclusive initiative to support more students. The campus readiness activities, instrument development and the pilot results culminate in the development and implementation of a semester-long student support initiative referred to as Tertiary Learning Communities (TLC).