INTRODUCTION:



[pic]

Person To Person Links:

Creating Intentional Connections for SUNY Cortland Students

Presented By:

Dr. Raymond Franco

Vice President for Student Affairs, SUNY Cortland

Darshini Roopnarine

Assistant to the Director, Residential Services, SUNY Cortland

Dr. Michael Kniffin

Associate Professor, Physical Education, SUNY Cortland

Summer 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. Introduction p. 3 - 8

Mission Statement p. 7

Goals p. 7

II. Methodology p. 9 - 13

Questions p. 10,11

How Participants Were Invited p. 11

The Interview Process p. 12

Ethnographic Data Analysis Process p. 13

III. Administrative Conference Members Responses p. 14 - 25

Question 1 p. 15 - 17

Question 2 p. 18, 19

Question 3 p. 20, 21

Question 4 p. 22, 23

Question 5 p. 24, 25

IV. Faculty/Staff Responses p. 26 - 40

Question 1 p. 27 - 29

Question 2 p. 30 - 32

Question 3 p. 33 - 35

Question 4 p. 36, 37

Question 5 p. 38 - 40

V. Student Responses p. 41 - 60

Question 1 p. 42 - 49

Question 2 p. 50 - 52

Question 3 p. 53, 54

Question 4 p. 53 - 62

VI. Themes Across All Groups p. 63 - 67

VII. Conclusion p. 68, 69

VIII. Recommendations p. 70 - 73

IX. References p. 74

X. Acknowledgements p. 75

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION:

At the beginning of his presidency at SUNY Cortland, Dr. Erik Bitterbaum was struck by the phrase, “student centered” utilized within the Division of Student Affairs at SUNY Cortland. He read that phrase in the 2002-03 annual report of the division of student affairs and asked the vice president to discuss this concept at the August 2003 opening meeting of faculty and staff. While preparing for this presentation, it became obvious to the Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Raymond Franco that in order for this College to be student centered, faculty, staff and administrators must make every effort to connect our students to the College in meaningful, positive, and constructive ways. This effort rests at the very core of what we do in higher education.

Thus a goal for the vice president’s office materialized – to increase the likelihood that students who enroll at SUNY Cortland will make meaningful connections with other members of the college community within a short period of time. In an attempt to understand what programs and strategies currently exist that connect students to our campus; the Vice President assigned Darshini Roopnarine, a graduate intern, to this project. After a short period of time, the intern was able to garner support for this project from faculty, staff, and student leaders across the campus.

The “Person to Person Links” project thus emerged at the beginning of the fall 2003 semester to investigate the extent that faculty, staff and students connect to each other and to SUNY Cortland. Its genesis can be linked to a study conducted in the late 1980’s which looked at the relationship between involvement of college students in a variety of campus activities and programs and the propensity for these students to become involved with disruptive behavior. The study was conducted on this campus and was the essence of a doctoral dissertation entitled “Understanding Disruptive Student Activity on Campus” (Franco, 1989).

Franco’s study attempted to look at Astin’s (1985) theory of student development from a different perspective. That is, much of the research and the perspective of the theory itself dealt with all of the positive outcomes of student involvement and the college experience. Students, who are involved, according to Astin, are more likely to persist, do better academically, and to be more satisfied with their college experience in general. Simply put, Astin claimed that students learned by becoming involved. He believed that the amount of time and energy put forth by an individual affects the likelihood that learning and growth would occur. Two of Astin’s five postulates are most related to this study. These state that 1) the amount of personal development and student learning related to a specific educational program is directly related to quality and quantity of student involvement with that specific program, and 2) the measure of any academic policy or practice is related to the degree which the policy or practice increases student involvement (Astin, 1985).

The study conducted at SUNY Cortland during the late 1980’s found small significant inverse correlations between involvement in positive and constructive campus activities, as measured by Pace’s College Student Experiences Questionnaire, (Pace, 1990) and participation in disruptive behavior, as measured by involvement with the campus judicial system. These findings lead to a deep appreciation of Astin’s work and earlier research in this area and reinforced the notion that students who become connected with their university in genuine, positive, and constructive ways are more likely to be successful.

Tinto’s (1975) seminal piece developed a conceptual model of attrition based on the notion of person-environment fit. The essence of this model suggests that an appropriate balance of academic and social integration plays an important role in determining a student’s commitment to college and subsequent decisions related to continuing with school or dropping out. Later on Tinto (1987) concluded that an institution’s ability to retain students was related to the degree to which its students become part of the institutional fabric. Further, he concluded that the creation of a healthy and caring institutional environment in which students find their place or “niche” is also a critical factor when institutions are considering retention strategies.

Pascarella and Terenzini, prolific writers in this area of study and research, analyzed more than 20 years of research on college students and concluded that the greater the effort and personal investment a student makes, the greater the likelihood of educational and personal returns on the investment across the spectrum of college outcomes (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Numerous studies have looked at persistence as it relates to friendships, extracurricular activities, faculty-student interactions, quality of the academic program and overall student involvement (Baumgart and Johnstone, 1977; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1977, 1980; Terenzini and Pascarella, 1977; Bean, 1980, 1982, 1983; Aitken, 1982; Pascarella and Chapman, 1983; Stoeker, Pascarella and Wolfe, 1988). All researchers found positive and significant correlations between these various factors and student persistence.

Student investment and effort with regard to their college experiences is being studied today on many college campuses as student “engagement”, both in and outside of the classroom. The Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) from Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary Research is currently used widely by institutions to measure student engagement during their educational experience. Campuses today are encouraging activities such as service clubs, community service programs, volunteerism, and service learning. Additionally, organizations such as the Campus compact have become powerful organizations across the country. Finally, experiential learning and active learning models which promote student engagement in the classroom are prevalent on nearly every college campus today (Warren, 1997).

In addition to being proven methods of increasing the occurrence of learning, many of these experiences provide students with a means to feel and become a part of their college community. With so many negative/counterproductive fears and feelings in the minds of many freshmen, having a positive, interpersonal connection with individuals or a group is critically important. This additional benefit may be as important and powerful an outcome as the learning outcome for which they are primarily designed. When Sanford (1962) wrote about the college experience and “Optimum Dissonance”, he was describing the balance between a challenge and the support needed to meet the challenge. The college experience for even the increasingly more academically prepared students must include programs, services, and people who will offer the support that is needed to meet the inherent challenges of this experience. Support in the form of meaningful connections to other members of the campus community can serve to give students feedback on how they are doing, offer a sense of acceptance, and perhaps even nurture the student through the most challenging periods of their college experience (Sanford, 1962).

Today, perhaps more than ever before, our students come to us with many fears and challenges. College students fear their new freedom, being perceived negatively, not fitting in, not making friends, challenging courses, isolation, competition from others who are smarter, disappointing their parents, and roommate conflicts. They are challenged to choose appropriate majors, be bold not shy, meet the academic rigors of college, and whether they or their parents can afford college. They have great anxiety over the changing relationships with their parents, their siblings, their high school friends, and their boy or girlfriends. Additionally, they lack an understanding of how they learn best and how to organize themselves for success. These are transition skills they must be learned at college. Finally, some are simply confused and uncertain about the world that we are living in today. For all students, but particularly for freshmen, the support to balance those challenges must be strong, steadfast, and come early in their college careers.

Freshmen students at SUNY Cortland are the highest risk group for attrition on SUNY Cortland and most campuses. Persistence rate for SUNY Cortland’s first-time, full-time students – in January 2003 was 72.9 %, which means SUNY Cortland experienced a 37.1 attrition rate. The biggest attrition occurred between the second and third semester. Women are retained at a higher rate. The males who entered in Fall 1995 after four years were retained at 20.80%, after five years at 40.19% and after six years at 43.77%. Women for this same period of time were retained after four years at 37.30%, after five years at 55.34% and after six years at 56.39.

“A consensus is emerging that the first years of undergraduate study-particularly the freshman year - are crucial to student success” (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p.6). Much research shows that the socialization that occurs early during the freshman year has a powerful positive impact on retention. Levitz and Noel (1989) have concluded that the first two to six weeks of the freshman year is the most critical transition period for freshmen. They also indicated that more than half of the students who drop out during this period have had no significant contact with members of the college faculty and staff. Specifically, they cite the fact that these casualties have not connected in any meaningful way with their RA’s, faculty members or their advisors. Another powerful conclusion by Levitz and Noel (1989) is that a caring attitude of faculty and staff is the most powerful tool for SUNY Cortland’s campus retention.

Although the Academic Support and Achievement Program helps all students from freshman through graduate level, freshmen make up 48% of ASAP’s overall population with 44% of its total population represented as first- generation college students. During the fall 2003 semester, the average freshman GPA for students who used ASAP services were 2.70 versus 2.57 during Spring 2004 semester for those who attended that semester. The majority of these students are members of one or more of the following high-risk groups: first-generation, males, special talent athletes, EOP, ESL, students with disabilities and students on academic probation. Additionally, 68% of these students received support in two or more areas, which included writing, reading, math, study skills, content tutoring and supplemental instruction. It is apparent that our freshmen need early intervention, multiple services, and adult mentors to persist to the next level.

Mission:

SUNY Cortland’s Person to Person Links committee consisted of Darshini Roopnarine, Assistant to the Director, Residential Services, SUNY Cortland and Graduate Intern, Syracuse University), Meg Nowak, Assistant Director, Advisement and First Year Programs, Mariangela Chandler Director, Academic Support and Achievement Program, Nanette Pasquarello, Director, Judicial Affairs, Michael Whitlock, Director, Corey Union and Conferences/Campus Activities, William Hopkins, Professor, Psychology, Amy Simrell, Director, YWCA, Michael Kniffin, Associate Professor, Physical Education, Matthew Barone, Student/SGA President, Donald Wilcox, Campus Minister, and Catherine Smith, Health Educator. Our group’s overall mission, as charged by the Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Raymond Franco, was to conduct a comprehensive study on the global view of connectedness at SUNY Cortland.

The Merriam – Webster dictionary defines “connect” as “to become joined; to join or fasten together usually by something intervening; to place or establish in relationship”. The investigation that followed looked at how SUNY Cortland develops and establishes a personal relationship with faculty, staff, and students who embrace the goals and mission of the institution and are successful members of the campus community.

The framework that guided this committee was that a positive and meaningful connection to the institution will result in a positive effect on both new students and the overall student body regarding their experience at SUNY Cortland. We know that most of our students do connect to the institution through faculty, staff, other students, residence hall programming, work study, and other campus employment, living learning communities, clubs, organizations, and athletics. With this framework in mind, our group’s goals were to:

Goals:

1. Identify all the avenues that students are currently using to connect with the

institution and provide an understanding of the dynamics and structures

involved in the process of connecting.

2. Recommend additional ways that students can become connected or further

connected, thus enabling all SUNY Cortland personnel to become more powerful tools.

3. Develop a strategy the College can use to help faculty, staff, and students

develop more effective and powerful connections.

4. Raise the awareness and the validity of the personnel who may not even realize

their impact on the students they encounter and by doing this, also strengthen our

resources so that individuals can see their role in a different light.

5. Disseminate our currently established “connection” programs more comprehensively

and more broadly. To this end, the institution could further determine how our

connections assist students, both new and transfer, with their transition and success at

SUNY Cortland.

6. To identify connection loopholes and provide recommendations that will result in

additional students establishing a meaningful connection to the campus.

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY:

Members of the committee met every two weeks, and in some cases every week, for eight months to discuss our mission and ways in which we could successfully accomplish the goals of the project. Discussions included the naming of our committee, determining each member’s role, anticipating challenges of getting members of the campus community to participate, establishing the type of questions and the format to use (focus groups vs. survey questions).

After several discussions, the committee concluded that focus groups would be more effective as compared to survey instruments. Survey instruments traditionally have a poor return rate and they typically provide quantative data versus qualitative data, thus excluding important anecdotal comments. Most importantly, they are not considered an effective person to person measure, thus, as a result, the questions and data collection were conducted/gathered through focus group sessions.

The Questions:

The questions were formulated from a theory called Appreciative Inquiry. The questions were formed to elicit a strength-based perspective. The goal of the questions was not only to identify areas of improvement in regard to SUNY Cortland’s connectedness, but also to frame them to reveal what we currently do and to create a vision for a better institution. Additionally, the five goals of the project stated earlier in the introduction were also used as a framework to guide the final selections of questions. After many revisions, examinations, test pilots, and approval from the IRB (SUNY Cortland’s Institutional Review Board), we concluded that the questions were not leading, overly focused, or biased.

THE FOLLOWING FIVE QUESTIONS WERE USED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE, FACULTY, AND STAFF:

1. In your own words, how would you define a meaningful connection with a

student(s)?

2. Describe the circumstances that lead you to feel most connected with a student(s).

3. To what extent do you believe that the students involved in your program/department

are connected to some aspect of college in a meaningful way?

4. What at SUNY Cortland affects your connection with student(s)?

5. In what ways do you feel connected to the institution, and how does this connection

impact your role with students?

THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS WERE USED FOR

THE STUDENTS:

1. Describe activities and programs that are currently being offered to first-year

students that helped you feel connected.

2. In your own words, how would you describe a meaningful connection with faculty or

staff?

3. In what ways have you been successful in connecting to SUNY Cortland?

4. The College is interested in connecting with you in a meaningful way. Please

suggest ways to go about achieving that goal.

How Participants Were Invited:

Participants were invited to take part in the focus group sessions through invitations, posters, two e-mails, and follow-up calls. The 81 Administrative Conference members were sent an individual invitation. An additional 5 invitations (totaling 405 invitations) were sent to each Administrative Conference member a week later with the request to distribute invitations to various members of his/her program/department. Next, 500 invitations were randomly placed in student mailboxes within the residence halls. Two e-mails were sent to the campus list server inviting all faculty, staff, and students to attend the group sessions. Each committee member was asked to distribute approximately 20 + invitations to faculty and staff they encountered. Furthermore, 50 additional invitations were sent to the director of Physical Plant to be distributed to CSEA personnel who do not have email access.

Twenty focus groups were conducted altogether: six with the Administrative Conference members, six with faculty/staff, and eight with students. These groups ranged in attendance from ten to eighteen participants. There were 48 Administrative Conference members encompassing 43 different sectors of the campus. These individuals consisted of the President, vice presidents, deans, department chairs and directors. Attendance of faculty, professional and classified staff members totaled 93 representatives. There were a total of 45 departments represented. Finally, there were 105 students and the groups were diverse in gender, age, racial/ethnic background, on/off campus students, transfer students, freshman to seniors, and most importantly, students who were on different ends of the connection spectrum; from those who were not connected to ones who were half-way through the process, to others were overly involved and described themselves as student leaders. Overall, two hundred and forty-six (246) members of the campus took part in this very important venture.

The Interview Process:

At every session, one facilitator and two note takers were present. All of the five facilitators (Mike Kniffin, Bill Hopkins, Cathy Smith, Don Wilcox, and Amy Simrell) used the same questions and followed similar formats. For instance, lunch and/or refreshments were served at every session, for which individuals were given fifteen minutes to half an hour to enjoy. Next, the facilitator introduced him/herself and participants introduced themselves and indicated which department they were from.

Then, the facilitator briefly discussed the intent of the session and allowed time for any questions. Ten minutes were given for each question; in some cases, the groups would spend more or less time, depending upon their interest in a particular question. Nevertheless, each facilitator adapted his/her own unique style in the way the groups were conducted.

All participants were asked to read and agree to an informed consent sheet that described the project, and added as precautionary measure persons to call in the event that any of the questions were emotionally difficult. The questions were not physically given to the participants. Instead, they were read two to three times by the facilitator to ensure that everyone heard and understood them clearly. Similar to student groups, the non student groups were also diverse in age, gender, background, years at SUNY Cortland, and job responsibility.

All the Administrative Conference and faculty/staff sessions were conducted in the Hall of Fame Room at the Park Center. Everyone sat on comfortable sofas in an informal atmosphere. The student focus groups were held in the Corey Union TV lounge with comfortable seating in a circle creating a non-threatening atmosphere. During the sessions, the two note takers were silent and sat at opposite ends of the groups with the expressed purpose of recording word for word notes. Prior to the sessions, discussions with the note takers emphasized the importance of trying to make sure that both note takers were hearing the same information and recording the data accurately.

It is important to note that with the exception of two sessions, there was one committee member and one non-committee member recording notes to maintain objectivity and impartiality. The note takers were Jean Brown, Debbie Lewis, Christopher Maroney, Darshini Roopnarine, Matt Barone, Tonika Jones, Sarah Lagos, Meg Nowak, Craig Dillaman, and Nanette Pasquarello. Since the notes were recorded on paper instead of tape recorded, this method did not capture body language, facial expression, or tone of voice that could help guide subsequent understanding. After each session, all of the notes were collected by one person and kept confidential. Once the report is complete, all notes will be shredded.

ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA ANALYSIS process:

Three members of the committee, Dr. Franco, Darshini Roopnarine, and Dr. Kniffin, were responsible for analyzing the data and writing the report to be presented to the President’s Council and the Campus community. The process of analyzing the transcripts was a very difficult and lengthy process, and we were fortunate to have the help of Dr. Alan Taylor, Director of Graduate Studies of the Child and Family Studies Department at Syracuse University, who reviewed an ethnographic data analysis process with the writers.

Color coded transcripts for all twenty sessions were differentiated into three groups and analyzed separately (administrators, faculty/staff, and students).

The notes were reviewed by each note taker each session for inconsistencies.

Samples of interview data were independently read and coded by two members and then compared for consistency. With several classification systems and mutually exclusive causal statements, the data was further compared and contrasted for similarities among themes, categories, and issues that emerged from the transcripts. Dr. Taylor forewarned us that the data could take years to fully analyze; in keeping with the deadline for this project he suggested ways to go about looking for broad themes that encompassed what the majority of the participants were reporting.

From each question, the two readers merged similar themes/categories into functionally equivalent ideas. In some cases, we came up with statements that did not fit into any of the other themes/categories and were less defined. Consequently, they were put into a miscellaneous category for later review. There was an overwhelming number of statements that overlapped among the groups. This was especially interesting to see since each facilitator had a different interview protocol. Dr. Taylor indicated that perhaps we had conducted more groups than we needed. Nevertheless, the transcripts across the board demonstrated great similarity. The report was written and organized by group, by question, and then by frequency across the groups; statements from participants will also be incorporated. While using different approaches, different facilitators, different note takers and different interview protocols, the research outcomes were almost the same among the groups. One can say that the research outcomes were triangulated, which is a measure of research quality.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE

MEMBERS

RESPONSES

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE

MEMBERS RESPONSES:

Question 1: How do you define a meaningful connection with students?

The members of the Administrative Conference described student connections in terms of developing interpersonal relationships. Many used words such as trust, respect and caring to describe what they believed was the essence of being connected to students. A powerful and frequent description of being connected revolved around students who worked in departments or offices across the campus and the relationships that developed as a result. It was apparent that most of these participants felt that all members of the Campus community play an important role in how students feel about being enrolled at the College. Taking the time to listen to students and giving students their undivided attention when interacting with them were also described as important elements of being connected. Being a good communicator, listener, and enjoying time with students were also considered important.

Emerging Theme 1:

Genuine, deep interpersonal relationships are developed between students and administrative staff.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Caring

➢ Mutual respect

➢ Trust

➢ Communication

➢ Shared interest

➢ Enjoyment

➢ Mentoring

➢ Surrogate parenting

➢ Listening

➢ Experiential learning/hands on work

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ The sense that you care and respect them.

▪ Fluidity of conversation, also a connection beyond graduation.

▪ They want to be a part of you and you a part of them.

▪ A spark of shared interest.

▪ There is a mutual respect and enjoyment in the relationship.

▪ Adults will take on a surrogate parent role with them.

▪ Comes about in a mutual interest based on the subject matter.

▪ Communication has to take place, verbal or not.

▪ Student has a sense that this is a person who cares about them.

▪ Connectedness is when both the instructor and the student learn.

▪ They have to feel that they exist.

▪ Being kind, being a good listener, because they may be here to talk about things deeper in their lives.

▪ Real life hands on projects are really exciting and teacher/student can form a connection.

▪ When students see faculty/staff outside the classroom running, kayaking, swimming, this creates such a meaningful connection because it allows the students to see faculty as a person.

▪ Recognizing the student as a unique individual.

▪ Active listening, eye contact, being overt in your commitment with them.

▪ Feel connected during the meeting of the minds…intellectually engaged discussions.

Emerging Theme two:

All members of the campus community and ALL types of connections on the campus are critically important to students.

Many students employed by the college become strongly connected to the department and the college.

Responses captured by the note takers:

Any connection that makes the students feel value.

▪ Support staff is usually considered a surrogate mom.

▪ Employs a large number of work study students….experience truly create a sense of identity and connection.

▪ Work study usually comes back and visits after they have left.

▪ Many people connect with support staff ….

▪ Many generations of college students came back to V’s (residence hall custodian) retirement party because he was able to create a positive relationship and because of the impact he had on them.

▪ Students work in the office—adults take on a surrogate parent role with them.

Secretaries often become the surrogate moms who can set up connections for students.

Working connection is an important connection for many students.

Question 2: Describe the circumstances that lead you to feel most

connected to students.

When answering this question, members of the administrative conference seem to suggest that nearly all students at the college are vulnerable, even fragile. Students, it seems, need to feel that they are a part of the campus community; something that they do not feel immediately or automatically upon enrollment. Students need to feel that established members of the campus, either upper-class students, faculty, or staff, care about them and know them. Acknowledging students by name and engaging them outside of the “normal” setting suggests to students that they are important and that they matter to someone on the campus. Students know when staff are focused on them and when they are distracted, and they also know when we genuinely care about them as individuals. Those who communicate this kind of caring are powerful retention tools; those who communicate the opposite to students drive students away.

Emerging Theme 1:

Showing students that you care and understand what they are experiencing leads to meaningful connections.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Understanding

➢ Knowing

➢ Available

➢ Student focused

➢ Trust

➢ Safe place

➢ In the moment

➢ Subtle acknowledgements

➢ Intrusive

➢ Autobiography of faculty

➢ Learn students’ names

➢ Raquette Lake retreat

➢ Recognition of the person

Emerging Theme 2:

Opening up to students and sharing personal histories impacts connections with students.

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Knowing and understanding their personal situation and what it took to get them here at SUNY Cortland

▪ An autobiography in class is really important in creating the connection because students want to and are willing to share

▪ When out of the blue students call or email to ask me my opinion or question

▪ If we say that we are student focused then we need to always model this behavior…we can’t just say it, we also need to do it

The most simple thing is being available both physically and emotionally

▪ Remembering a student’s name is so important…it is so basic and a simple effort but students appreciate that you remember them

▪ Providing a safe place for people to voice their own opinion and not be afraid

▪ Weekend retreat to Raquette Lake…incredible and powerful impact on the development of my class

▪ Part of our connection is giving them their own wings

▪ Important to take time to spend out of class

Question 3: To what extent do you believe that the students involved in your program/department are connected to some aspect of college life in a meaningful way?

Many Administrative Conference members observed that some students are very involved with their programs, while the majority is not. As would be expected, as students succeed and become upper class students, they are more likely to become engaged with various departments. Engaging and involving students earlier in their careers was discussed as an obvious yet powerful means to increase student connections, followed by positive results. Immersing students in a setting with faculty and staff, particularly, time at the Raquette Lake camp, was described as one of the most powerful means to connect with students. The testimonials from those who have shared a Raquette Lake experience with students could not possibly be more powerful.

Emerging Theme 1:

A subset of upper class students becomes very connected within departments, many underclass students do not.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Tomik is social hub

➢ Coach as a parent

➢ Two weeks at Raquette Lake

➢ Difficulty when students are not in a major

➢ Size of department…not usually connected until fall of senior year

➢ Students hanging out in faculty offices are usually the same students

➢ Lost souls club forms (in the library)

Responses captured by the note takers:

We make an effort to connect with students

▪ We try to be more intrusive

▪ RA’s try to take them under their wing

▪ Students with learned helplessness or lack of confidence need us to make the first move to connect

▪ Those who participated in athletics or have a personal bond with a faculty member have a tremendous bond to the institution

▪ Juniors and seniors are connected and can see the value of academics, but I cannot say the same for freshmen

▪ Not sure how many feel connected until fall of junior year when we meet in an educational/community like setting

Trying to create cohorts…to deal with the problem of size

Most significant way to connect is with employed students

▪ So often the person who needs connectedness most is the person that doesn’t get connected

Heart wrenching not reaching the students most needing to connect

▪ The effect and motivation is a two way street and you cannot force the student

▪ The student has to believe that you mean what you say when you say I am here to help

▪ The connections need to be made very early when students arrive at college

Students need different levels of connectedness

▪ Alcohol is a huge way that students connect on campus

▪ Connection with a coach who steps in as a parent…connections with teammates

Question 4: What at SUNY Cortland affects your connection with students?

Many members of the Administrative Conference indicated that the very reason that they got into higher education was because of the positive relationships that they could develop with students. Many also bemoaned that as they rose through the administrative ranks, the contact with students diminished. Several individuals described how the lack of facilities where students and faculty and staff can meet, socialize, and interact negatively impacted connections. Additionally, some noted how the set up of an office and the furnishings of a department could negatively impact the feeling that students had when they entered an area. Most acknowledged that resource shortages, in the form of time, money, and staffing issues have a negative impact on their ability to connect with students. However, it is observed by the writers that, while members of the staff and faculty might not have time to do everything that they would like to do, short changing students by not taking the time to make them feel like they are at the center of everything we do, is a critical mistake.

Emerging Themes:

Movement upward within the organization results in diminished connections with students which opposes our most powerful reasons for entering the field of higher education.

Facilities on campus impact connections greatly.

In an era of insufficient resources, taking the time to make connections with students is not viewed by many as a high priority as the effort to connect with students is secondary to many other “more pressing” responsibilities.

Negative experiences on the campus in one area impacts THE student experience in general.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Facilities affect connections

➢ Furniture arrangement matters

➢ Campus life center needed

➢ Lack of time

➢ Too stretched and too overwhelmed

➢ Thinly staffed

➢ Deep commitment to work, sense of joy

➢ Go beyond and aspire

➢ Size of the major impacts

➢ Technology---avoids contact

➢ Common hour

➢ Too many meetings

➢ Lack of interactions

➢ Time and money

➢ Campus is over programmed

➢ Apathy

➢ Functions and activities divided

➢ Chain of command separated

➢ Need for a cultural center

➢ Class size

➢ Incredible sense and mission to help students

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Most of us who got into education because we enjoy connecting with students

▪ Professional roles cause a change in the way I connect with students

▪ Lack of resources makes it difficult to sponsor and attract students

▪ People are filled with vision and mission but don’t have the resources to fulfill their goals

▪ If we feel good it will infuse into our interaction with students…if we feel we’re

drowning, that will factor into our interaction with students

▪ Bar scene is negatively impacting our connection with students

The invention of the PIN# has taken something away from the advising relationship

▪ We need a true student life center

▪ People need to get together to talk about the good of Cortland

▪ I wish I had more time to see my students; do the things they like to do when they’re not in class

▪ Right now my priority is home if there is a conflict

▪ I don’t have enough time to spend with students. You do the minimal things and then you have to move on to the next thing

Question 5: In what ways do you feel connected to the institution and how does this connection impact your role with students?

Administrative staff indicated that there is a direct relationship between feeling appreciated and being recognized by the College and their ability, and perhaps desire, to perform at a superior level. They believe that students are very perceptive of how faculty and staff feel about working at the College and that it does in turn affect how they feel about being here as students. Several commented that the College is a “best kept secret”, meaning that we do not do enough to celebrate and boast to the world about how good we are. Additionally, it was observed that much more time is spent on discussing our shortcomings than on celebrating our accomplishments. It was noted, however, that celebrating what we do well has increased of late. Answers to this question also focused on the tension that is created when one feels overwhelmed by the myriad of responsibilities and how the change in presidential leadership may be adding to some feelings of being disconnected.

Emerging Themes:

When people feel appreciated, when they are recognized, and when they believe that they are being successful helping students, they feel most connected to the college.

When staff feels connected to the institution and are happy with their experience at the college, it impacts the way students perceive them and the college.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Position impacts ability to interact with students

➢ Must structure time to interact with students

➢ Some roles lead to making connections

➢ Negative view of community impacts students’ connection

➢ Professional obligations and campus obligations cause tension

➢ Lack of money to support everyone

➢ Period of transition causes feeling of disconnect

➢ Connections happen when helping students

➢ Can lose connectedness if overworked

➢ We are critical of ourselves and don’t celebrate our successes

➢ Being connected impacts work with students

➢ Increased connections result in feeling valued

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ It is difficult in my position to interact with students other than a few workers and student government leaders

▪ My supervisor hosts office hours to be available to students

▪ The nature of what we do lends itself to making connections

▪ Students who work off campus get a bigger picture of the community and feel more connected to the community as well

▪ Support by the MGS related to diversity and support by the administration makes me want to stay here

▪ If your office is not the highest priority, it becomes difficult to feel connected

▪ There is a big disconnect because of transitions. New president: people don’t know what to expect

▪ I feel like I am giving them what they paid for so I feel connected

▪ We do not admit students to fail, we admit them to succeed

▪ When I know I am helping/assisting students and when I work with colleagues and we have been successful problem solving

▪ We do far too little to celebrate what is going right and focusing on what we are doing

that is good

▪ The College is beginning to do things like recognizing faculty at the end of the year.

Cortland is the best kept secret

▪ Students see that the office is a place that they can come to without an appointment and that they will get a positive response from everyone in the office

▪ The further I got away from students the less satisfied I felt with the position

▪ Know that the work is valued by the institution is also important. I think that this is a great idea

▪ One of the things people said was that we often look at our faults and our weaknesses and do not spend enough time celebrating the wonderful things about Cortland.

FACULTY/STAFF RESPONSES

FACULTY/STAFF RESPONSES:

Question 1: In your own words, how would you describe a meaningful connection?

Emerging Themes:

Meaningful connections are based on reciprocal relationships and feature verbal and nonverbal forms of communication.

Meaningful connections develop over time.

Meaningful connections are often based on a common interest(s).

Meaningful connections include trust, respect and mutual caring.

Question one was designed to help the committee understand the nature of meaningful connections with students. Throughout the interviews, faculty/staff referred to a connection as a reciprocal relationship. In other words, connections work two ways from one person to the other. Communication is essential for a reciprocal relationship and a meaningful connection. Faculty/staff identified verbal and nonverbal forms of communication that characterize the most basic forms of a meaningful connection; such communications include calling a student by name and offering a smile. Thus, a meaningful connection requires a reciprocal relationship between two people and is established through verbal and nonverbal communication.

Additional characteristics of a meaningful connection emerged. These characteristics were repeatedly identified across the six faculty/staff interview sessions. It was generally acknowledged that meaningful connections can be initiated anywhere and developed over time. Without question, faculty/staff agree on the importance of facilitating connections by using first names, saying hello, being open, friendly, and approachable, making eye contact and having an open door policy. As meaningful connections develop, they are characterized by genuine trust and respect. It is important to note that mutual trust and respect emerged as the most often cited characteristics of a meaningful connection. The most meaningful connections evolve to an intellectual, personal and emotional level where discussions move beyond class assignments or the business at hand to a sharing of life experiences and interests. At this level, mutual caring is an important sign of a meaningful connection. A common thread of interest shared between a faculty member and student, or staff member and student, is often present in a meaningful connection.

Evidence of meaningful connections comes through student behaviors. Faculty and staff identified such behavior as returning after graduation for a visit, sharing pictures and personal events such as marriage, career information, etc. Asking for advice and confiding problems or concerns are additional evidence of meaningful connections. There is ample evidence to suggest that a meaningful connection often led to a bond between two people, and this bond is based on trust and respect.

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Openness

➢ Saying hello

➢ Should be two way

➢ Approachable

➢ Friendliness

➢ Open door policy

➢ Relationship

➢ Emotional

➢ Intellectual

➢ Personal

➢ Over an extended period of time

➢ Dialogue exchange

➢ Usually takes time

➢ Communication

➢ Common interest

➢ Nonjudgmental

➢ Reciprocal

➢ Mutual trust

➢ Respect

➢ Eye contact

➢ Caring

➢ Bond

➢ Good listener

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ How excited students are when we remember their name

▪ Being a good listener is important

▪ Developing mutual trust and respect and this usually takes time

▪ In academics, to me, it is developing a longer term relationship with a student; if you

connect, you see them again

▪ Connection isn’t what they came in to do (money on their card); it is the other things we

talk about (what did you do on your spring break?); it is the personal information

▪ Has to do with knowing the student’s name

▪ It has a common thread - on a personal level with similar interests

▪ Caring in two directions between professor and student

▪ It involves fairness, civility, and respect

▪ Trusting environment both ways

▪ Making eye contact and saying hello

▪ Reciprocal relationship between student and faculty

▪ Knowing something personal about them

▪ Trust is involved

▪ Saying hello and acknowledging the person

▪ They come back to see you more than once

▪ A connection should be two ways

Question 2: Describe the circumstances that lead you to feel most

connected with a student(s).

Emerging Themes:

Circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students can occur in the classroom or outside the classroom.

Circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students are reciprocal.

Work-study programs provide circumstances that consistently help faculty/staff to feel most connected with students.

Circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students are self-affirming with positive emotional outcomes.

By asking this question, the committee wanted to explore the kinds of circumstances that lead to faculty/staff feeling most connected with students. Faculty/staff identified a variety of different circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students. Their answers clearly revealed that these circumstances occur on a continuum of informal to formal circumstances and can take place on or off campus. Even though the circumstances of connection were varied, they all shared the same quality, which was the feeling of being most connected with students.

Reported examples that lead to meaningful connections with students include having coffee with a student in a restaurant, a one-on-one counseling session, working with work study students, engaging students in academic content in the classroom, working with EOP students, meeting students at the academic convocation, attending and observing students in extracurricular programs, attending cultural events with students, attending athletic events, working with students though the residence halls and helping students through the judicial process and internships. Thus, the circumstances that lead faculty/staff to feel most connected with students are many and varied and range from informal to formal circumstances that take place on and off campus. In short, circumstances that lead faculty/staff to feeling most connected with students exist across campus and throughout the community. There was one circumstance, however, that was noted with greatest frequency across the six groups of faculty/staff interviewed and that circumstance was work-study.

The interviews revealed that students employed on campus consistently produce meaningful connections. Generally, the circumstance of work-study begins with faculty/staff that meet and train students for their work duties. Often, the working relationship develops into a collegial relationship and a most meaningful connection. The connection is so meaningful that students will return to see faculty/staff and share life experiences and ask for advice and opinions following completion of the work study program.

Faculty and staff reported that the most meaningful connections include the feelings of being appreciated, making a difference, a sense of pride, mutual bond, meaningful relationships, trust, respect, commitment and feeling like a family.

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Work-study

➢ Internships

➢ Academic convocation

➢ Athletic events

➢ Trust

➢ Out-of-class experiences

➢ Residence halls

➢ One-on-one counseling

➢ They’ll come back to see you

➢ EOP program

➢ They ask for your opinion

➢ Mutual bond

➢ Share a cup of coffee

➢ Involvement

➢ The feeling of being appreciated

➢ Feel like a family

➢ Attends extracurricular activities

➢ Attends cultural events

The following are responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Close relationship with work study students; they are like a family

▪ A meaningful relationship has to start in the classroom

▪ When they ask for your opinion in any situation

▪ When he gets students responsive in the classroom

▪ The card from Career Services

▪ The EOP student that was in trouble when he first came to Cortland - now he is a leader

and comes into the office often; he keeps coming back to share things

▪ In my little office in a counseling session one on one

▪ You know that you have made a difference in their lives

▪ We hire a lot of kids in our office - the staff grows very close to them even after they leave

▪ A real nice connection is a work study position

▪ SS1 is hired out of our office - they’ll come back and report how their sessions are going;

it is a connection for those students; they have an important role for other students and

it gives them a sense of pride; it makes us colleagues

▪ Sometimes it really is in the classroom when students are really engaged, or informal

off-campus setting, or individual discussions with students regarding their problems or

concerns

▪ Teaching that is successful establishes connections

▪ It is hard to define; can’t define it, but know it when you see it

▪ There are students that just drop in to say hi

▪ Students are appreciative when he attends their extracurricular activities

▪ Attends cultural events and students are very appreciative of this

▪ The residence halls are an excellent way to connect with students, both during positive

and negative experiences; judicial cases can be developmental and a learning experience

Question 3: To what extent do you believe that the students involved in your program/department are connected to some aspect of college life in a meaningful way?

Emerging Themes:

Faculty and staff beliefs regarding the extent of student involvement in respective programs and departments are varied.

Concern for transfer and commuter students was expressed regarding their involvement and connectedness with SUNY Cortland.

A place to socialize with students on campus is needed.

The committee asked this question to determine the extent of student involvement in programs and departments across campus. Faculty/staff beliefs about student involvement in their respective programs and departments varied.

On one hand, five specific examples of student involvement were given. The geology department is small, and this allows faculty and students to connect fairly well. They have field trips every semester, and this aids student involvement in their program and connection with faculty. It was reported that students in the musical theater group are passionately involved in their program and connected as a family/group. RAs were also identified as being very involved in their duties. Internships and work study programs were also identified as areas of student involvement in programs and departments. On the other hand, minimal student involvement was indicated in one program. Furthermore, three of the six groups interviewed expressed concern regarding the lack of involvement of transfer students and commuter students in programs and departments. Finally, several respondents indicated that they simply did not know about the extent of student involvement in their programs or departments. Clearly, faculty/staff hold a variety of beliefs regarding student involvement in programs and departments.

It is interesting to note that in each of the six groups interviewed, the discussion evolved from extent of student involvement in programs/departments to student involvement in the campus community at large. Again, faculty/staff beliefs about student involvement varied here as well. However, two of the six groups clearly expressed strong opinions about the need for a space on campus to meet and socialize with students to facilitate involvement and connections. Corey Union was described as the “Black Hole of Calcutta” and not a good place to socialize. The need for a modern union or recreation center was clearly expressed.

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Corey Union is the “Black Hole of Calcutta”

➢ Have something in common

➢ Passionate about something

➢ Hard to know

➢ Transfer students - fewest connections

➢ Small departments

➢ Involved in clubs

➢ Involved outside of classroom

➢ Too many students

➢ Scholarship involvement

➢ Community involvement

➢ Recreation center

➢ Broad range of activities

➢ Need place to socialize

➢ A student union is important

➢ Cafe in the library

➢ Julian Wright’s recreation center proposal

➢ Architecture of buildings

➢ Different levels of commitment, interest and ability

➢ Some of the buildings - lighting is poor, looks like a storage room

The following are responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Corey Union is the “Black Hole of Calcutta” - a dark hole - not a good place to socialize

▪ Some classes/majors segregate students into one building or another which prevents

students from venturing into the rest of the campus

▪ The geology department, a small department, allows students to connect fairly well and

soon; they have field trips every semester and it helps

▪ Their student room for socializing is close to faculty office

▪ Do not know what his students are involved in outside of the classroom

▪ Her students are involved outside the classroom

▪ When residence halls go down for renovation, students get scattered around and they

lose their niche and their established community

▪ She requires/encourages students to attend programs/activities being offered outside of

the classroom; they thank her later for attending

▪ Hard to know, some will go to programs and are active members in clubs, etc., but the

majority have no real place to go and their main source of connection is downtown

drinking; you see the result in their grades and judicial process

▪ Make a difference day - students volunteer for this day, which helps them see the work

involved in keeping a campus clean

▪ Musical/theater group - they are connected as a family/group and are passionate - a lot

has to do with how passionate they are about something

▪ A place to meet and socialize on our campus is needed

▪ Transfer students seem least connected

▪ Architecture of the buildings - we are adding more and more amenities to the students’

rooms which consequently keep them in their rooms

▪ RAs are extremely connected

▪ The work study students seem to be connected

▪ We have had students doing community service in our office

▪ Having something in common

▪ We encourage that (connection) from a scholarship point of view, we are encouraging

them to be involved in the college community

▪ Broad range from student government and activities to judicial

Question 4: What at SUNY Cortland affects your connection with students?

Emerging Themes:

Connecting with students requires time.

Busy schedules, workload, large classes, meetings, committee work often limit faculty/staff time for making connections with students.

Committee work serves as a way for faculty/staff to connect with each other, learn more about how the campus works, and in turn, serve students better.

Being connected is not just for students; faculty and staff value being connected among themselves.

The committee asked this question to identify and better understand what conditions affect connections with students. Two of the six groups interviewed did not answer this question because of a lack of time. However, three out of the four groups that did respond to question four consistently identified conditions that inhibit connections with students. Such conditions include cramped schedules, multi-tasking, workload, large class size, meetings and committee work. Any one or a combination of such conditions can usurp faculty/staff time, making it more difficult to connect with students.

Committee work was viewed as one of the conditions that inhibit connections with students because it absorbs faculty/staff time. However, it is important to note that two of the four interview groups discussed committee work as an important way for faculty and staff to make connections with each other and learn more about how the campus functions. They were quick to point out that making connections with colleagues and learning more about the institution enables them to be more effective in their work and to be of greater service to students. This was described as “getting the big picture”. In short, faculty and staff value being connected among themselves; being connected is not just for students.

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Time

➢ Cramped schedule

➢ Feeling tense

➢ Multi-tasking

➢ Class size

➢ Workload

➢ Too many meetings

➢ I get paid to do this too

➢ What I’m doing

➢ Juggling everything

➢ Committee work

➢ Committees and meetings are detrimental to connection

The following are responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Too many meetings - most of her time is spent in meetings and not in the hall

▪ Pulled in a lot of different directions

▪ She needs time to be a residence hall director so that she can have time to connect

▪ Class size and set-up affects connections

▪ As a faculty member, it is difficult to juggle everything - multi-tasking

▪ Committee work, as much as it’s a drag, allows her to see different perspectives and

connect in different levels - example, honors convocation

▪ Just being on committees has helped me get the big picture of what it’s all about

▪ Helps to see how you can make the student’s experience better

▪ The more connected you are to other staff on campus, you know who to call

▪ Connectedness shouldn’t just be focused on the students; we need to feel connected

▪ The school has to say this is important

Question 5: In what ways do you feel connected to the institution and how does this connection impact your role with students?

Emerging Themes:

Faculty and staff experience different levels of connection

to the institution

The primary connections for faculty and staff to the institution come from a passion for their work, teaching, and communication with students and colleagues.

Some faculty/staff feel connected through their work,

teaching, and communication with students and colleagues,

but do not feel connected to the institution at large.

Some faculty/staff feel connected through their work,

teaching, communication with students and colleagues and do

feel connected to the institution at large.

Cortland alumni, employed by SUNY Cortland, feel very

Connected to the institution at large.

The committee asked this question to identify the ways faculty and staff feel connected to the institution and how such connection(s) impact their role with students. Faculty and staff identified feelings of being connected with the institution at two distinct levels. At the first level, faculty and staff reported feeling connected to the institution primarily through teaching, departmental and office work, students, and immediate colleagues. They reported a passion for doing their work and that this work was more than just a job. Strong reliance on co-workers emerged from the interviews. Bonding with co-workers and knowing that co-workers would offer support at any time was reported in three out of the six groups interviewed. In this same vein, it was recommended that faculty and staff has more opportunities to socialize. At this first level, the satisfaction of working with students was also reported as being a primary point of connection with the institution. Once again, committee work was identified as a way to connect with the institution at the first level. However, this is where the feelings of connection ended for faculty and staff in this group. Their feelings of connectedness did not extend much beyond their immediate departments, students and colleagues. They did not feel connected to the institution as a whole. Faculty and staff at this level expressed a desire for more support and greater connections with the upper administration. Some faculty/staff felt under appreciated by the upper administration.

It is interesting to note that a second level of connectedness with the institution was identified by faculty and staff. They were identified as being connected with the institution at level two. This group of faculty/staff felt connected through all the avenues of connectedness identified by the faculty and staff in level one. However, this group felt connected beyond their immediate departments, offices, students, and colleagues to the institution as a whole. Furthermore, they differed from faculty and staff in level one by expressing an allegiance to the institution. Invariably, this group of faculty and staff were Cortland alumni employed by the alma mater.

It is important to note that answers to question five provide only a basic understanding of how faculty and staff feel connected to the institution. Furthermore, the second part of question five was never really addressed as discussions across all six groups focused on how faculty/staff connect with the institution and not how those connections affect connecting with students.

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Passion is important for the job

➢ Classroom

➢ Personal department

➢ Loves working with students

➢ It’s a lot more than a job

➢ Feels connected to her hall

➢ The culture and atmosphere is positive

➢ His life is only in education

➢ Committee work

➢ Feels connected to other departments and students workers

The following are responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Passion is important for the job

▪ Search committees are a good way to get involved

▪ I feel more connected since I joined the Child Care Board

▪ I work with a lot of faculty on scholarships and feel pretty connected

▪ I usually know a contact person in each department so that I can contact them with

questions; they can help you in the right direction

▪ When you leave the classroom and personal department and go beyond, it makes you

think twice about going above and beyond; things can become nasty and hostile

▪ There should be more opportunity for faculty and staff to socialize together

▪ Do not have much connection with SUNY Cortland because she is only here on

Tuesday/Thursday; culturally, she is the only one like herself on campus; she goes out

and makes these connections, if not, she would be lonely and depressed

▪ Committee work, as much as it’s a drag, allows her to see different perspectives and

connect on different levels; example is the honors convocation

▪ Feels a connection to higher education and SUNY Cortland

▪ Was a graduate of Cortland and now an employee and feels a strong connection to the

institution

▪ Feels connected to other departments and student workers

▪ The institution employs her but she is here because of the students

▪ Loves working with the students

▪ It’s a lot more than a job

▪ One of the work incentives for coming to Cortland was knowing of fellow co-workers,

supportive co-workers who are there to offer help anytime

▪ Looks to her staff and co-workers to bond with

▪ Would really like more support from the upper administration

▪ Have a connection with students but desperately lacking one with upper level

administration; they don’t say hello

STUDENT RESPONSES

STUDENT RESPONSES

Question 1: Describe activities and programs that are currently being offered

to first year students that helped you feel connected.

This particular question does not lend itself to following the format used in previous sections

Emerging Themes:

Transfer students and their challenges to Connect

Inconsistent Reactions towards the Resident Assistants, Hall Directors, Residence Hall programming and the Residence Halls

Tremendous variability towards COR 101 and Advisors

What helped students to connect and what did not help them to connect

Transfer Students:

Transfer students responded that it was especially hard for them to connect when they arrived to Cortland because they felt rushed to register for classes, settle into their rooms, know the ins and outs of the residence halls, purchase their books and meal plans, and become acquainted with the campus. It was interesting to note that the transfer students who were assigned housing at West Campus apartments, Cheney, DeGroat, Smith/Casey Towers, Clark, or a hall with the majority of students being freshmen, they felt especially disconnected.

For West Campus and Cheney, the locations of these two residence halls inhibited them from feeling connected to the larger campus community. For the Towers complex and Clark Hall it was being placed in a suite with people who all knew each other and feeling like the odd person. Many say that the suites do not force students to leave their room except to empty the trash or leave the building. For some, they only knew the people living in their individual suites and no one else on the floor. Current Clark Hall residents indicated that the door closures force them to keep their doors closed, which, consequently, does not allow them to meet people and build an open community. For transfers placed in the low rise halls, this experience was also in their words “horrible” because they did not enjoy it and felt that they could not connect while living with freshmen students.

The responses that were positive were from transfers who lived in Hayes Hall and Alger Hall prior to its renovation. Prior to these buildings closing this past year, the majority of students living in these two halls were transfers, and they were able to feel connected because they had something in common with each other. Once the buildings closed mid year, residents felt that they were forced to leave their community and start over. Other halls that were noted as conducive to positive connections were: Whitaker Hall for its intimacy and size, and newly renovated Higgins Hall and Alger Hall.

Residence Hall Staffs:

Responses regarding the Resident Assistant and Residence Hall Director’s role in connecting varied from very positive to very negative depending upon the student and their experience. The conclusion was that it depended on the RA/RHD personality, work styles, and most importantly, their commitment to the position.

On a positive note, the RA/RHD staff was described as:

✓ A buddy

✓ They are essential at connecting with students

✓ Unorthodox

✓ They ask where you are from and they care

✓ They know you

✓ RA was instrumental in helping to meet people

✓ They are leaders

✓ They help to make students feel welcome and warm

✓ They help you to feel welcome

✓ The RA/RHD helped by introducing everyone

✓ The staff made it easier

✓ RA’s helped us to bond

✓ Helped to change my life

✓ Made me want to become an RA

✓ They are important in helping to make the connection to Cortland

✓ RA’s invited us to programs, activities and events

✓ RA knocks on everyone’s door inviting them to attend programs

✓ They are important to the first year experience

✓ They provide continuous programming that are good for connecting people

✓ The role of the RA/RHD is very important

On a negative note, the RA/RHD staff was described as:

✓ Had a negative experience and the RA could have helped

✓ They are very cliquey and shut out others

✓ They like to get students in trouble

✓ Followers

✓ Not good at communicating with students

✓ RA let everyone do whatever they wanted

✓ The RA’s should know you beyond your name

✓ Cliquey which is not good for building community

✓ It wasn’t a big deal but made it into a big deal

✓ Did not make us feel welcome

✓ The RA’s let students get away with everything so that they could fit in

✓ They do not treat everyone fairly

✓ Doors are not open, not friendly or approachable

✓ Reactive rather than proactive

✓ The programs connected the floor but not the hall

✓ RA/RHD are only in it for the free room and apartment

✓ Programs in the halls do not appeal to students; they only do them because they have to

The overall theme is that the RA/RHD staffs are very important and essential in helping to make positive connections with students. Today’s technology such as cable, Nintendo, and internet were blamed for keeping people in their rooms. Now, more than ever, the role of the RA/RHD is needed to bridge the gap between students living in isolation and connecting with others. As a result, they recommend that the College should have a better selection process, hire people who care about connecting with students and not just want a free room or apartment. Provide better training, hire people representative of students and the hall and not people who fit with the staff or RHD. It is worth noting that there were past and current RA’s present at all eight sessions and they were, at times, the most passionate about the above recommendations.

Residence Hall/Programming:

Students were overwhelmingly pleased with the condition of the residence halls, especially the newer buildings and the residence hall programming. They were upset that housing was not guaranteed for juniors and seniors. Everyone agreed that depending on the programs being offered in the hall, they can be very helpful in connecting people within the building. Buildings with suites were noted as having a lesser open community as compared to the halls with corridor style hallways. They recommend more intentional programming/services to get people out of their routine and communicating with each other.

What helped students to feel connected to Cortland:

✓ Clubs/organizations

✓ Intramurals

✓ Adventure activities

✓ Welcome Week

✓ The RA

✓ 9/11 Vigil

✓ Basketball Team

✓ Small size of class

✓ Cortland Nites

✓ Biology Department

✓ Academic Convocation

✓ Orientation

✓ EOP summer program

✓ All nighter in the field house

✓ Raquette Lake

✓ Being sociable and meeting others

✓ Leadership Retreat

✓ Leadership House

✓ Tech First

✓ Living Learning Community

✓ Being forced to sign up for adventure activities class

What did not help students to feel connected

to Cortland:

The theme that showed up in every session that played a role in the students’ inability to connect was coming from New York City or a small town and having difficulty adjusting. Additional factors emerged that make it difficult to connect; such as an undecided major, being tripled or placed in a lounge, being homesick, becoming ill due to the weather, and not enough heat in the residence halls. Very important, their perception of Cortland was that it is a sports and drinking school and if you do not like to do either then they do not belong here. As one student remarked, “drinking is out of control here at SUNY Cortland. If you do not drink or play sports it is really hard to socialize and connect”.

COR Class:

General views on the COR class ranged from twenty-three (23) positive views to twenty-seven (27) negative views. These views were collected from across the eight sessions. Overall, the sense from the students who felt connected to their COR experience is that it was because the instructor played a mentoring role. It would be interesting to conduct an assessment to determine whether same majors or mixed major students are more effective in COR, because the students were split regarding their preference.

Positive responses to COR:

✓ Professor was flexible and forced people to get connected

✓ Same majors together is helpful

✓ Helped with class registration and in becoming familiar with the campus

✓ Team of professors were mentors (mentioned across the groups)

✓ COR teacher was also the advisor

✓ Forced to go to four campus events – ex., Tunnel of Oppression

✓ Wellness Living Learning Community beneficial

✓ It provided good resources

✓ It depends on the teacher

✓ COR is a good connector

✓ Was an introduction to campus

Negative responses to COR:

✓ Depends upon the teacher whether students felt connected

✓ Serious issues with perceived lack of content by students; waste of time

✓ Felt secluded with same majors versus mixed majors

✓ Very repetitive for EOP students who attended the EOP summer program

✓ Teacher Assistant not trained well enough

✓ COR did not help in connecting

✓ It should not be a graded class

✓ Needs to be more in-depth

✓ No connection to faculty member

✓ It could be restructured to be more effective

Advisors:

Overall, there were twenty-seven (27) positive views and thirty-seven (37) negative views regarding students’ interaction with their advisors. Across the groups, everyone agreed that having a good advisor is central to their academic success. However, students with negative views of advisement blame their advisors for having to take classes that in their opinion, they didn’t need, or having to spend extra semesters here at Cortland. The ones who were disappointed with their advisor were very passionate in their responses and spoke at length about how these mistakes caused them to have a dislike for the institution as a whole. Clarification of expectations of advisors by the College would be important.

Positive responses to the advisor relationship:

✓ Advisor always there for me; a good mentor; takes the time to listen and ask questions

✓ Advisor finds out more and follows up

✓ This relationship is very important

✓ Likes connecting with advisor in and out of the classroom

✓ CAP report is nice to have

✓ Will keep relationship with advisor forever

✓ Advisors play a big role in shaping their college career and how students view the

College, and they do not realize it

Negative responses to the advisor relationship:

✓ Advisors need better training; don’t know what they are doing; ineffective

✓ Only go to their advisors for the PIN #

✓ Cannot depend on advisor; does not show up for appointment, or late for appointment

✓ Advisor pushes students to take their individual course(s)

✓ Poor advisement can lead to student’s desire to transfer out

They only know you as a number and not as a person/student

The roles of the advisor/advisee relationship should be defined/described more clearly

Advisor does not go over curriculum requirements, students end up taking extra

semesters

Paperwork gets lost

CAP report is nice to have; can’t depend on advisor

Question 2: In your own words how would you describe a meaningful connection with faculty or staff?

Emerging Themes:

Meaningful connections are based on a relationship outside of the

classroom

Meaningful connections involve recognition

Meaningful connections depend upon Approachability

Meaningful connections are often based on a sense of belonging

This question was designed to gain a better understanding of the nature of meaningful connections with faculty/staff from a student’s perspective. The students described a meaningful connection with faculty/staff as a relationship outside of the classroom and one that includes recognition, approachability, and a sense of belonging.

Do you know who I am? It is important for students that faculty/staff get to know them outside the realm of the classroom and connect on a personal level. This relationship does not involve talking about a class assignment or grade. It involves student and faculty/staff feeling comfortable enough to share personal stories, interests, and hobbies. It also included attending activities/programs on campus, hiking, kayaking, and seeking advice from each other. This bond allows both parties to see each other more as a person, rather than just in the realm of their positions.

Recognizing the student can lead to a meaningful connection. Characteristics of this include taking the time to know and remember the student’s name, using their name in class or at a sporting event, making eye contact, and acknowledging the student. It also means recognizing when the student is succeeding and offering help when the student feels challenged. It means help with a problem or issue; saying hello outside of class, such as in the dining halls or walking around the campus. These are indications that allow the students to feel that he/she is cared for.

The student feeling at ease, welcome and comfortable to approach the faculty or staff with a question or concern is another component of a meaningful connection. The form of approachability depends upon the faculty/staff person being flexible, accessible, having an open door policy, being a good listener and an overall friendly person.

A sense of belonging is when the student feels ownership, pride and part of the institution in a larger context. For instance, working together to accomplish the same goals, being treated as an equal, being respectful of each other and being part of a mutual learning experience.

Supporting phrases and terminology:

➢ Out of class context

➢ Saying hello

➢ Respectful

➢ Caring

➢ Eye contact

➢ Equal

➢ Common interest

➢ Knowing my name

➢ Unity

➢ Personal

➢ Good listener

➢ Welcome

➢ Open door policy

➢ Flexibility

➢ Approachable

➢ Easy to talk to

➢ Comfortable

➢ Working together

➢ Belonging

➢ Pride

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Important when the faculty gets to know you outside of class and when they take the time

to know your name.

▪ When teacher says hi after you are no longer in class

▪ It helps him to see his professor as a person, and helps his professor to see him as a

person. It’s nice when you are seen as more than a student.

▪ Sense of ownership – buying into what goes on here and not just going to class

▪ One of the most important things is when the professor takes the time to know your name.

▪ These classes are the most connective. This also helps students to learn about each

other; these are the classes that are warm and enjoyable.

▪ Great when professors start the class by asking how everyone is doing and jokes around.

▪ When the professor comes in the first day and shares something about him or herself –

give a little both ways.

▪ Being allowed to call the person by their first name

▪ Seeing the faculty/staff person at off campus establishments and the person stopping to

say hi

In all eight focus groups, the cleaning staff, support staff, and employees at ASC, with Dunkin Donuts being noted at the highest frequency, were praised for being the most effective groups at creating the most meaningful connections with students at SUNY Cortland.

Question 3: In what ways have you been successful in

connecting to SUNY Cortland?

The groups range from those who were not connected and were not enjoying SUNY Cortland to students who were starting to connect and feeling a part of the College to students who felt like they were over-connected and involved in everything. The responses to this question depended upon whether or not the student was outgoing, shy, assertive, and length of time at SUNY Cortland. The following is a list of programs, activities, havens and individuals that, according to students, helped them to connect and in their opinions, played a significant role in helping them to successfully establish a sense of belonging and connection to SUNY Cortland.

Individuals at SUNY Cortland:

✓ Friends/roommate

✓ Other transfer students

✓ Basketball coach

✓ RA/RHD

✓ Cleaners

✓ Secretaries

✓ Advisor of Gospel Choir

✓ Upper class student

✓ Bus drivers

✓ Professors in Phys Ed.

Programs/Activities at SUNY Cortland:

✓ Basketball

✓ Chemistry Club

✓ SGA

✓ Tennis

✓ Gospel Choir

✓ Soccer teammates

✓ BASIC

✓ Work study

✓ Outdoor club

✓ Fraternity

✓ BSU

✓ COR 101

✓ Leadership House

✓ RHA

✓ Adventure activities

✓ Intramurals

✓ Classes

✓ Sociology/Anthropology Department

✓ The rescue squad

✓ CURE Program

Havens for connections:

✓ Downtown Cortland

✓ Parties

✓ Smaller dining halls

✓ Dunkin Donuts

✓ Non-traditional lounge

✓ Raquette Lake

Overwhelmingly, students credit Student Government Association, Raquette Lake experience, and student employment as being very instrumental in paving the way to their success at this institution.

Question 4: The College is interested in connecting with you in a meaningful way.

Please suggest ways to go about achieving that goal.

With this being the final question, each facilitator told the students that this was their chance to give advice and recommendations to the College as to how, as an institution, we can improve our efforts to connect. The responses to this question were categorized into two areas: the first was advice and recommendations to the institution on how to improve personal relationships between students and the College, and the other information is advice and recommendations to fellow students.

Emerging Themes:

Improved connection and communication between Student Government Association and students, in particular freshmen

and transfer students.

Increase opportunities to socialize by providing more

Purposeful activities, programs, and gathering places at

SUNY Cortland.

Enhance actions by faculty and staff to create more

Effective bonds with students.

Bridging the gap to allow for a smoother transition of

Freshmen and transfer students to SUNY Cortland in an

attempt to create a more welcoming atmosphere.

Clubs and organizations within SGA were acknowledged as a very important component/asset at SUNY Cortland. Many students indicated that their first connection to the institution was through meeting other students/faculty/staff of SGA. With this in mind, there were other students who were unsuccessful in connecting to Cortland and say that SGA could have made a difference in their experience. Fraternities and sororities were used as an example of how inviting and open they are to students. Some say that they come and knock on your door and invite you to attend and suggest that, as a College, we don’t work to be proactive to get students’ attention and consequently, get them involved.

Their initial connection depended upon whether or not the student was assertive or not, whether he/she was involved, their experience in high school, and most importantly, whether someone reached out to them during their first weeks at Cortland. Students remembered that the first push to connect was all they needed. For instance, being invited by another student to attend the Leadership Retreat, being invited to a club meeting, intramurals, or a party downtown made all the difference in their experiences, whether positively or negatively.

Students articulated that not everyone is confident enough to make the first step, and SGA needs to go out of their way to connect with every new student (freshmen and transfers). It was suggested that efforts to attract new members should be done throughout the semester and not just at the beginning of the year. This can be done with creative advertisements, centralized e-mails or a representative from each club/organization making a concerted effort to recruit and/or invite a new student. Students in every group noted that they received an overwhelming number of e-mails from SGA and complained about e-mail overload. It was suggested that there could be one web address that advertised all of the club events, meetings etc. In general, everyone agrees that they would like to get more involved and connected to SUNY Cortland and the difference could be in becoming an active member in one of the clubs and organizations within SGA.

Opportunities to socialize could be improved by providing more diverse activities,

programs, and gathering places for faculty/students/staff to connect. Some students feel that SUNY Cortland is a dedicated athletic school and the perception is that activities are geared to students who love sports. If someone is not interested in sports, they are ultimately left out. Starting with orientation to the end of the school year, students suggest that there should be an increase in non-sports programs/activities so that students who do not drink or like sports can also feel a part of the social network. Examples of these activities could be up-to-date performers, activities catered to students, programs for students to connect over food, celebrations, all campus BBQ, competition between students and personnel, and increased programs that go beyond 8:00 pm. Many say that they start having fun after 8:00 pm and suggest a 24-hour basketball court, weight room or other non-sport/non-drinking activities.

The non-traditional student lounge was used as an example of an excellent social haven where many students get together to eat and share conversation. They expressed the desperate need to have more places like this on campus where students can congregate with other faculty and staff. Transfer students and students who visit friends at other colleges say that what is missing from Cortland is a recreation center that would serve as a social hang out or gathering place.

There is a desire for an improved intellectual environment and students recommend seminars and lectures that are not only offered on weekdays but are also offered on weekends when it is more feasible for students to attend. On a positive note, activities offered through Cortland nites and ice-breakers in class and in the residence halls are excellent ways to connect and meet people.

The bond between students and faculty/staff is another area that should be strengthened. As stated earlier, students are seeking more relationships that extend beyond the classroom setting. They say that some College personnel do not strive to connect or think that it is important to get to know students on a more personal level. A gesture as simple as someone saying hello or good morning is important. Being good listeners, open minded, and having a positive attitude are essential components in forming a personal relationship. However, faculty/staff’s tight schedule, use of intimidation, and responding with anger makes it very difficult to meet and connect.

Across the board, administrative offices were noted as being difficult to work with. Examples provided were students feeling like they are given the “run around”, generic answers, no personal care, unclear answers, brushed off, and people not willing to take the time to help. Offices that are closed during lunch and at 4:30 pm make it inconvenient for some students to get their paperwork done in a timely fashion. They suggest offices staying open during the lunch hour and after 4:30 pm.

Coming together and celebrating accomplishments is an area that students say we need to do more of as a campus. Many commented that Academic Convocation, Raquette Lake retreats, Leadership Retreats, the Educational Opportunity Program summer program are excellent programs that helped with their transition to Cortland and ultimately, to other opportunities to connect. Along the same theme, students suggest that departments should have a meet and greet – an opportunity for students/faculty/staff to connect on a different level and felt this should happen during the beginning and end of semesters.

There are loop-holes in the transition of freshmen and transfer students to SUNY Cortland; these gaps need to be bridged so as to create a more welcoming atmosphere. As mentioned in question number one, transfer students especially struggled with their transition to Cortland, and during the sessions, some were still dealing with this challenge. Transfer students, both males and females were represented in seven out of the eight groups, and their distaste for Cortland ranged from their room assignment, residence hall, class registration, advisement and transfer of credits, to their ability to fit in and feel welcome at Cortland. Particularly, when transfer students begin their Cortland experience at mid-year they are forced to adjust very quickly to a new environment, already at a disadvantage since the other students have spent the full semester here and have begun to make connections.

STUDENTS’ RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INSTITUTION:

✓ Students have difficulty connecting because they do not feel like they are invited, they are too busy, they are fearful, uncomfortable, and are marginalized

✓ SUNY Cortland can help dispel their overall feeling of being invisible by making concerted efforts to be a better host

✓ The hall staffs could be more welcoming by reaching out and introducing them to other students in the hall

✓ They recommend that SUNY Cortland should work more with students coming from a community college to make the transition of credits easier

✓ Make more proactive efforts to connect with transfer students instead of putting them on one floor

✓ Establish a big brother/sister program similar to Oneonta. A junior/senior student

emailed her prior to coming to Oneonta. This helped because it allowed her to establish a relationship with that student prior to arriving to school

✓ Avoid placing transfer students in residence halls with other underclassmen

Supporting Phrases and Terminology:

➢ Connect students to the larger community and town

➢ More mentor programs between faculty and staff

➢ Make better overtures to connect with students, in particular transfer students

➢ Get more students’ opinions

➢ Faculty and staff need to have a solid connection

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ Make it mandatory for students to come to faculty office hours

▪ Don’t triple, or if you triple, be sure of the room size

▪ Tell freshmen to be specific about where they want to live

▪ Prevent students from taking classes they don’t need to graduate

▪ Stop charging for everything, even to fax a resume

▪ First couple of days are crucial to connecting

▪ My professor made each student come to his office to talk about a non-class topic

▪ Did not feel like the person cared “If you do not want to be here you can leave because

there are other people who would like your space.” The student wanted to withdraw

after hearing this

▪ Take a step back and look at it through the eyes of a student and not faculty or staff

▪ Bring regular students to recruitment instead of counselors in suit and tie. You get a

more down-to-earth perception and outlook of what the campus looks like

▪ Have an advisor/advisee day lunch to establish a personal relationship at the beginning

▪ We need to do more for transfer students – there is no support system

▪ More programs for transfers during welcome week are needed.

▪ So much of their fees seem to go to athletics but more need to be given to social

programs. For people not involved in sports its really hard.

▪ Respect is a two-way street

▪ Little things add up

STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO OTHER STUDENTS

Emerging Themes:

Don’t be afraid, work through comfort level

Get to know others from diverse backgrounds

The College experience is very different from the high

School experience

Get involved and meet people

Comments taken from the student focus groups were insightful and perhaps would be well-worth passing on to prospective students as a “heads up” about college life...could this be a way to start the connection link before they even arrive on campus?

Related to the subject of professors/classes, students felt that classes were a good way to meet people, thereby making new friends who have a common bond of the class subject. It was felt that if you got to know the professor, it would help your grade in the long run. It was interesting to note that “even if the professor gives you attitude, stick up for yourself.” This goes along with other comments exhorting students, in general, not to be afraid; work through comfort level; don’t be scared of feeling uncomfortable for a little while–it’s a part of growing up; stand up for what you believe in; put yourself out there.

It was recommended to take classes that are available on campus that help learn different ways to communicate more effectively, and to become more comfortable in certain situations as well as experience knowing how to present yourself. In addition, there is a need to learn how to get to know others from diverse backgrounds; for many students, college may be the first place in which they run into people/situations that they are not familiar. It was noted that the college experience is very different from the high school experience. Students go from a world of knowing the same people for up to thirteen years, trying to be like everyone else, trying to fit in, peer pressure and conformity, to one of “No matter what you do, you will fit in here because there is always someone doing it.” Life is no longer about “...how you look...clothes are not as important as in high school.”

A couple of comments were made about becoming involved in drinking–in essence, don’t do it just because everyone else is and don’t let it run your life. It was noted that one missed so much when weekends were spent drinking and that there were so many alternatives.

Getting involved and meeting people seemed to be the two main factors for successful connections. Whether it was by going to the gym, becoming a hall staff member, attending events on campus, or simply exploring the campus, several students had made their connections by putting themselves out there. In the case of those who weren’t approached to join activities, the comment was made “If you want to get involved, you have to do it on your own.”

Responses captured by the note takers:

▪ If you get to know the professor, it will help your grade in the long run

▪ Do your best to get involved and meet as many people as you can

▪ Don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in

▪ Don’t just drink because everyone else is doing it; go bowling, etc

▪ Try to be outgoing and look to meet people

▪ Don’t make just a couple of friends and stop; friends you meet the first week may not be

the best roommates

▪ Become an RA; get to know professors; learn how to deal with people

▪ Open gym: meet people; intramurals

▪ Attend programs sponsored by RAs

▪ Classes are good to meet people; make friends; share classes

▪ Learn how to communicate with others: Anger Management; Conflict Resolution. Ex.:

Leadership Retreat truly helps; learn to get to know others from diverse backgrounds.

If you want to get involved you have to do it on your own

▪ Freshmen should be very specific about what they put on their housing forms

▪ Not being scared of feeling uncomfortable for a little while; it’s a part of growing

up

▪ Not being scared. Work through comfort level

▪ Get out and experience new things

▪ Don’t fall into going out and drinking every weekend; you miss out on so much when you

drink every weekend

▪ There are a lot of things to do - just reach out

▪ Don’t just go from dorm to class. Explore the campus, walk around the streets and the

town.

▪ Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there. Need to connect with an adult. Go to events

▪ High school is very different than college. There is no real pressure to try and fit in; you

can find people interested in what you are by going to event

▪ No matter what you do, you will fit in here because there is always someone doing it

▪ Not as important how you look here because clothes are not as important as in high

school

▪ Be observant because there are many fliers, read your email and delete if don’t want. If

you see something, just go do it. A world of opportunities is available

▪ Be more persistent so that you are not forced to take another semester here at Cortland

▪ Do not feel like you have to impress anyone

▪ Don’t make excuses or just do homework; there is a whole world existing outside of the

classroom

▪ Even if professor gives you attitude, stick up for yourself

▪ Start in beginning with someone who knows what you need

▪ Rate my – is a wonderful tool

THEMES ACROSS ALL GROUPS

THEMES ACROSS ALL GROUPS:

Another way to look at the data is to compare and contrast responses to questions across the three groups of participants. Question one for the Administrative Conference and the faculty/staff and question two for the students were essentially the same question. The emerging themes which characterized the discussion of the Administrative Conference included the belief that genuine, deep interpersonal relationships are developed between students and administrative staff on our campus and all members of the campus community and these types of connections on the campus are critically important to students. Themes that arose from the faculty and staff groups were that meaningful connections are based on reciprocal relationships and feature verbal and nonverbal forms of communication, meaningful connections develop over time, and meaningful connections are often based on a common interest(s). Student groups discussed how showing students that they (faculty and staff) care and understand what they are experiencing leads to meaningful connections, and opening up (self disclosing) to students and sharing personal histories impacts connections with students. Additionally, students felt that meaningful connections are based on a relationship outside of the classroom, involve recognition, depend upon approachability, and are often based on a sense of belonging.

These themes lead to several conclusions and recommendations. The essence of the themes across the groups suggests that honest, genuine communication and interaction is necessary in order for students and members of the faculty and staff to connect with anyone on this campus. This statement is true anywhere, and based on this project, the participants have confirmed that some basic tenets of interpersonal relationships hold true at SUNY Cortland. Healthy interpersonal relationships must be reciprocal in nature, take time to develop, are more likely to occur when there is common interest between the parties, and must involve self disclosure of meaningful, honest information. In order for people (either students or staff) to feel that they are true members of the community, that they matter, and that they belong, it is essential that they develop such relationships with others on the campus.

The implications of these conclusions should be considered across the campus because they relate to every aspect of the College as an organization. For example, the structure of both in and out of classroom experiences, the development of programs designed to connect students (e.g., mentor programs), and even the questions that are asked of prospective employees, should consider these conclusions. Every program and structure that impacts the campus experience for students, faculty and staff should consider these findings when reviewing program mission statements, goals, and strategies/actions.

Given the difference in the remaining student questions when compared to the questions asked of the other two groups, this analysis is now limited to comparing and contrasting the responses from the Administrative Conference and the faculty and staff groups. Question two asked participants to describe the circumstances that lead them to feel most connected with a student(s).

Administrative Conference members indicated that showing students that you care and understand what they are experiencing leads to meaningful connections, and opening up to students and sharing personal histories impacts connections with them. Faculty indicated that circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students can occur in the classroom or outside the classroom, circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students are reciprocal, and work study programs create circumstances that lead faculty/staff to feel most connected with students. Additionally, circumstances that lead to feeling most connected with students are self-affirming with positive emotional outcomes.

These themes suggest that meaningful and genuine connections between faculty and staff and students are just like any other interpersonal relationships. That is, feeling most connected with others is a result of honest self disclosure which is reciprocal in nature, can occur as the result of classroom or out of classroom experiences, and many times is the result of a student employment work situation. The result of such relationships, as would be expected, is a feeling of fulfillment and is emotionally positive in nature.

The third question asked participants to reflect on the extent that they believe that the students involved in their program/department are connected to some aspect of college in a meaningful way. The Administrative Conference themes included the observation that a subset of upper-class students becomes very connected within departments; yet many underclass students do not become connected. Also, many students employed by the College become strongly connected to the department and the College.

Faculty responses suggested that programs and departments across the campus vary widely. They expressed concern for transfer and commuter students regarding their involvement and connectedness with SUNY Cortland and concluded that a place to socialize with students on campus is needed.

Some students, perhaps because of their early experiences or because of their personal approach to the college experience, get very involved and connected to their academic departments. The faculty indicated that the commuter students and our efforts to give transfer students an experience which results in a connectedness to the campus need to be worked on. The variability across the campus regarding the degree to which departments connect with its students is, on the one hand, troublesome, but on the other, a source of tremendous potential. Departments that are doing an outstanding job in this area should step forward to share their strategies with the rest of the campus community. These best practice departments should be identified and asked to assist those departments that do not believe that they are doing well in this important area.

The fourth question asked what at SUNY Cortland affects the connection of faculty and staff with student(s)? Adminstrative Conference members indicated that movement upward within the organization results in diminished connections with students which opposes our most powerful reasons for entering the field of higher education. They also noted that the design and location of facilities on campus impact connections greatly. In an era of insufficient resources, connections are not viewed by many as a high priority, as the effort to connect with students is secondary to many other “more pressing” responsibilities. This group also suggested that negative experiences on the campus in one area impact students’ experience in general.

Faculty and staff indicated that connecting with students requires time (which is limited), while busy schedules, workload, large classes, meetings, and committee work often limits faculty/staff time for making connections with students. Also, committee work serves as a way for faculty/staff to connect with each other, learn more about how the campus works, and, in turn, serve students better. Finally, the point was made that being connected is not just for students; faculty and staff value being connected among themselves.

Making meaningful connections with students a high priority for faculty and staff is essential if the culture of the campus is to change. Developing structures which will make it easier for faculty and staff to spend quality time with students is necessary. Supporting these efforts across the campus may require unusual thinking. Two suggestions include allowing faculty to share meals with students at little or no cost and doing whatever is necessary to encourage the family members of faculty and staff to become more involved in the life of the campus. Encourage families to attend sporting events at no cost, eat in the student dining areas at little cost, and to attend other recreational, social, and cultural events at little or no cost would be helpful. Instead of faculty and staff having to choose between supporting their students or spending time with their families, they may be able to do both, if properly encouraged and supported by the institution.

Question five asked “in what ways do you feel connected to the institution, and how does this connection impact your role with students.” Administrative Conference participants indicated that when people feel appreciated, when they are recognized, and when they believe that they are being successful helping students, they feel most connected to the College. Also, they indicated that when staff feels connected and are happy with their experience at the College, it impacts the way students perceive them and the College.

Faculty answered this question by stating that faculty and staff experience different levels of connection to the institution, the primary connections comes from a passion for their work, teaching, and with students and colleagues. Also, while some faculty/staff feel connected through their work, teaching, and communication with students and colleagues, they do not feel connected to the institution at large. Finally, Cortland alumni, employed by SUNY Cortland, feel very connected to the institution at large.

Supporting and appreciating the good work of the faculty and staff is essential. The College has begun to celebrate the accomplishments of its faculty and staff and should look to increase efforts to do so. Department heads, Deans, Vice Presidents and the President must look at ways to nurture new faculty and staff and to make them feel welcomed into the campus community. Departments should re-double their efforts as new staff are hired and should also look at ways to develop a strong sense of community within the department. The campus community should look for reasons to celebrate and recognize members of the faculty and staff who do an excellent job for our students. Those members of our community who do not show students and others that they care about them should be confronted by colleagues and co-workers. The Campus should look to hire and retain staff members who embrace values that result in treating all others with dignity, respect, and civility.

Conclusion

Conclusion:

This exercise was viewed by many as a very positive and constructive experience. Some indicated that having the kind of exchange and dialogue precipitated by the focus groups was something that the college staff should engage in more often. The focus group process brought to light the fact that this college has many individuals who care deeply about the education and development of the next generation of leaders and are willing to discuss ways to improve how we interact with and treat our students.

Our student body is made up of individuals who also care about this college and want to share their experiences to help shape the future of the college. Many of our students have had a very positive experience, while others have not. While academically successful in high school, it is very apparent that many of our entering traditional students are unsure of themselves when they arrive on the campus and have a strong need to be accepted by the campus community. Until they feel a part of some group or until they feel that they are recognized as a person with value and worth on the campus, they are quite fragile and vulnerable.

Many members of the college faculty and staff are doing exactly what needs to be done for students to feel connected to the campus. As indicated in this report, students know when people care about them, and they appreciate it deeply. Those who treat students with respect and show that they care about them have a powerful, positive impact on how students feel about being here. Those who treat students as if they do not matter and, perhaps worse, mistreat them, can drive students away from the campus very quickly.

Faculty and staff also need to feel appreciated and valued by their colleagues and by others across the campus. Faculty and staff feel that being recognized for good work and believing that colleagues and members of the administration care about them is extremely important, irregardless of their place in the campus organizational structure. Recent efforts to formally acknowledge good work are important and are appreciated by faculty and staff. Informal connections and support for faculty and staff must be a priority of the campus.

The administrative retreat at Raquette Lake during summer 2004 will provide an opportunity for campus leaders to discuss this study and begin to develop actions or strategies that will make a difference for the college. Each individual and each and every department and program on the campus can use the information provided in this report to gain insight into what is important to students as well as faculty and staff colleagues and to change the way students and colleagues are encountered and how they experience this campus. It is our hope that as a result of this project and its findings we will take steps which will make our campus the supportive, nurturing community that we want for our students and for ourselves.

The opening faculty and staff meeting in August will provide an opportunity for the broader campus community to receive the report and discuss the strategies developed at Raquette Lake. It is expected that the agenda of every department and program on the campus for the upcoming year will include an analysis of these results and a discussion of how the information can be used to improve the campus, person by person and program by program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The results of this study were presented to participants at the President’s Administrative Retreat at Raquette Lake on July 15, 2004. Following the presentation of the results, five groups were formed and through an hour long group exercise, generated strategies for connecting students on four levels: individual, departmental, division/school, and college wide. Listed below are common themes across all groups and all four levels:

Individual :

(What each member of the campus community can do to help students connect with our college):

1. Take an attitude that “the buck stops here”. Listen and act, helping the student solve

the problem/issue and not giving her the “run around”.

2. Hire more students.

3. Get to know students personally. Reach out; recognize/acknowledge them when you see them on campus. Be an active listener; engage them both verbally and non-verbally. Learn students’ names and greet them by name.

4. Provide more opportunities for faculty and staff to meet with students. Provide coupons for lunch, coffee, etc. so that faculty and staff can meet with students in informal settings.

5. During the early part of the semester (preferably during the first week), make an attempt to learn about student’s name, interest, hobby, etc.

Departmental :

(What departments can do to connect with students):

1. Encourage peer tutoring programs within your major (work with ASAP to increase the number of peer tutors).

2. Solicit student feedback about the department. Ask students how they would like to become more connected to the department.

3. Hire more work study/temporary service students (perhaps hire more students for fewer hours each).

4. Ask faculty/staff within the department to become more engaged with departmental clubs/organizations.

5. Post pictures of departmental faculty and staff members in main office or hallway outside of the department.

6. Develop more internship opportunities for students.

7. Make offices more inviting to students. Office set up impacts perception of offices as student friendly.

8. Develop departmentally based student mentor programs with freshman and junior major.

9. Develop departmental strategies for student connectedness.

Division/School:

(What can each of our schools and divisions do to connect with students):

1. Develop social interactions for faculty/staff with students within the school.

2. Include student employees in school/division wide meetings, discussions whenever possible.

3. Identify and recognize ‘best practices” for connecting with students within each school/division.

4. Develop programs/means which will result in students identifying with their school.

5. Conduct “town hall” meetings for all majors within each school. Follow up with faculty student mixer.

6. Develop school wide retreats/trips for students.

7. Invite faculty to speak at residence hall events.

College wide:

(What the college can do to increase students’connectedness):

1. Use scholarship money to increase the number of students employed by the college.

2. Support the opening convocation and other beginning of the semester activities that connects students with faculty and staff.

3. Build a campus life center that is open and inviting to all members of the campus community.

4. Take every opportunity to support retreats to the Raquette Lake campus.

5. Encourage and support faculty involvement in the residence halls.

6. Develop workshops for office staff which will enrich the employment and connection experience for students and staff.

7. Develop college spirit events which will increase student, faculty, and staff (and family) participation in campus activities.

8. Continue to develop and increase participation in Scholars’ Day program.

The members present at the President’s Raquette lake retreat were:

Erik Bitterbaum, Gradin Avery, Ed Caffarella, Joanne Barry, Ram Chaturvedi, Peter VanderWoude, John Cottone, Mark Prus, Linda Battin, Elizabeth Davis-Russell, Nasrin Parvizi, Bill McNamara, John Ogden, Gloria Murray, Bill Shaut, Roy Olsson, Pete Koryzno, Norma Helsper, Ginny Levine, Dave Ritchie, Michael Katz, Bonni Hodges, Colleen DeGouff, Yvonne Murnane, John Mosser, Beth Klein, Patty Francis, Ray Goldberg, Paula Warnken, Glen Wright, Tracy Rammacher, Mariangela Chandler, Mike Kniffin, Darshini Roopnarine, and Raymond Franco.

These recommendations represent the beginning of the dialogue that should take place across the campus this year. A presentation of this report will be made at a Fall Sandwich Seminar and the committee is anxious to discuss the findings and additional strategies at departmental, school, and division meetings as well.

References:

Aitken, N. (1982). College Student Performance, Satisfaction, and Retention: Specifications on and Estimation of a Structural Model. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 32-50.

Astin, A. W. (1985) Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumgart, N. and Johnstone, J. (1977). Attrition in an Australian University: A Case Study. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 553-570.

Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and Turnover: The Synthesis and Test of a Causal Model of Student Attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.

Bean, J. (1982). Student Attrition, Intentions, and Confidence: Interaction Effects of a Path Model. Research in Higher Education, 17, 291-320.

Bean, J. (1983). The Application of a Model of Turnover in Work Organizations to the Student Attrition Process. Research in Higher Education, 6, 129-140.

Commission on Institution of Higher Education of The North Central Association. (1996, February 22). “Commission statement on assessment of student academic achievement.” Chicago: North Central Association.

Franco, R.D. 1989. Understanding Disruptive Student Activity on Campus, Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1989.

Levitz, R. and Noel, L. (1989). Connecting Students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In M. L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, and Associates (Eds), The freshman year experience. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. and Chapman, D. (1983). A Multi Institutional Path Analytic Validation of Tinto’s Model of College Withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 87-102.

Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. (1977). Patterns of Student Faculty Informal Interaction Beyond the Classroom and Voluntary Freshman Attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 540-562.

Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. (1980). Predicting Persistence and Voluntary Drop Decisions From a Theoretical Model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991).  How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights From Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pace (1990). Pace, C.R. (1990a).  College Student Experiences Questionnaire, Third Edition. Los Angeles: University of California, The Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education. 

Sanford, N. (1962). The American College. New York: Wiley

Stoeker, J., Pascarella, E. and Wolfe L.M. (1988). Persistence in Higher Education: A 9 Year Test of a Theoretical Model. Journal of College Student Personnel, 29, 3, 196-209.

Tinto, V. (1977) Drop Outs in Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Warren, R. G. (1997). Engaging students in active learning. About Campus, 2(1), 16-20.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This project/report could not have been completed without the help of many diverse campus constituents who went above and beyond to complete this important mission for SUNY Cortland. We would like to thank Dr. Alan Taylor, Nanette Pasquarello, Mariangela Chandler, Matt Barone, Jean Brown, Debbie Lewis, Christopher Maroney, Bill Hopkins, Amy Simrell, Meg Nowak, Tonika Jones, Sarah Lagos, Catherine Smith, John Shirley, Don Wilcox, Mike Whitlock, and Craig Dillaman for all of their efforts toward the completion of this project. We would also like to thank Mike Holland for his support and flexibility in releasing staff to work on this project.

Most importantly, we would like to thank all of the students, administrators, faculty and staff who participated in the focus group sessions. The attendance at these groups demonstrated overwhelmingly SUNY Cortland’s dedication to creating a campus that we can all be proud of. Your valuable input in these sessions is the first step towards creating many more meaningful connections among faculty, staff, and students.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download