The Journal of College and University Student Housing

Transcription

1 2008 Volume 35, No. 2 October/November 2008 Volume 35, No. 2 Oct./Nov. The Journal of College and University Student Housing The Journal of College and University Student Housing Factors Affecting Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Housing and Residential Life Staff: Perceptions of Chief Housing Officers Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness Among Residence Hall Students Elaine M. Eshbaugh The Relationship of Disordered Eating Behaviors of Undergraduate Women, Their Living Environment, and Their Academic Standing Kimberly T. Fulcher, Steven M. Janosik Religious Expression Among Residents and Resident Assistants in Residence Halls at Public Colleges and Universities: Freedoms and Constraints Christy D. Moran, Camilla J. Roberts, James A. Tobin, Linda M. Harvey Where You Live Influences Who You Know: Differences in Student Interaction Based on Residence Hall Design The Journal of College and University Student Housing Eric M. Nestor, Thomas Ellett, Steven St. Onge Alison Brandon, Joan B. Hirt, Tracey Cameron The Educational Role in College Student Housing Harold C. Riker, David A. DeCoster A Commentary on The Educational Role in College Student Housing Volume 35, No. 2 October/November 2008 Carolyn Palmer, Ellen M. Broido, Jo Campbell Association of College & University Housing Officers International ACUHOJournCover.indd 1 Association of College & University Housing Officers International 10/22/08 11:40:42 AM

2 The Journal of College and University Student Housing Volume 35, No. 2 October/November 2008

3 Copyright Information: Articles published in The Journal of College and University Student Housing are copyright The Association of College & University Housing Officers International (ACUHO-I) unless noted otherwise. For educational purposes, information may be used without restriction. However, ACUHO-I does request that copies be distributed at or below cost and that proper identification of author(s) and The Journal of College and University Student Housing be affixed to each copy. Abstracts and Indexes: Currently abstracted in Higher Education Abstracts. Subscriptions: $30 per two-volume year for members $40 for nonmembers single copies $15 per copy for members, $25 for nonmembers Available from the ACUHO-I Central Office, 941 Chatham Lane, Suite 318, Columbus, Ohio Xerographic or microfilm reprints of any previous issue: University Microfilms International, Serials Bid Coordinator, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan The ACUHO-I Foundation The Journal of College and University Student Housing is supported, in part, by the ACUHO-I Foundation. The ACUHO-I Foundation was formed in 1988 to provide a way for individuals, institutions, corporations, government agencies, and other foundations to support the collegiate housing profession through gifts and grants. Since its inception, the Foundation has raised more than $1 million to fund commissioned research, study tours, conference speakers, institutes, and scholarships. More information about the ACUHO-I Foundation, its work, and means to make a contribution can be found at Cover photos: Front - Pierson College, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut Back - Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

4 ACUHO-I Executive Board of Directors Norb Dunkel President University of Florida in Gainesville Michael Schultz President-elect Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Jill Eckardt Vice President Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton Peter Galloway Business Practices and Enhancements Director West Chester University of Pennsylvania Steve Waller Facilities and Physical Environment Director Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge Patricia Martinez Finance and Corporate Records Officer Miami University in Oxford, Ohio Ana Hernandez Globalization Director University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chuck Rhodes Inclusion and Equity Director Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California Tony Cawthon Knowledge Enhancement Director Clemson University in South Carolina Cathy Bickel Residence Education Director Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana Jacque Bollinger Regional Affiliation Director University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Pam Schreiber Workforce Development Director Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers

5 Journal Board Members Phyllis McCluskey-Titus, Editor Illinois State University Paul Jahr Associate Editor Georgia College & State University Craig A. Schmitt Associate Editor University of Dayton James Atkinson University of Wollongong Greg Block New Mexico State University Pam Boersig The Art Institutes International Minneapolis David Clark Wake Forest University Ryan Davis University of Maryland Jeff Doyle Appalachian State University Leon Fulcher United Arab Emirates University Vanessa Johnson Northeastern University David Jones The University of Alabama Gerry Kowalski University of Georgia Tim Luckadoo North Carolina State University Josh McIntosh Harvard University Stephanie Messer-Roy University of Southern Mississippi Carolyn Palmer Bowling Green State University Ashok Roy Indiana University Jim S. Settle Shawnee State University Von Stange University of Iowa Steve St. Onge Clinton Community College Dale R. Tampke Ohio University Darla Twale University of Dayton

6 The Journal of College and University Student Housing Volume 35, No. 2 October/November 2008 Letter From the Editor Phyllis McCluskey-Titus Factors Affecting Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Housing and Residential Life Staff: Perceptions of Chief Housing Officers Steven St. Onge, Thomas Ellett, Eric M. Nestor Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness Among Residence Hall Students Elaine M. Eshbaugh The Relationship of Disordered Eating Behaviors of Undergraduate Women, Their Living Environment, and Their Academic Standing Kimberly T. Fulcher, Steven M. Janosik Religious Expression Among Residents and Resident Assistants in Residence Halls at Public Colleges and Universities: Freedoms and Constraints Christy D. Moran, Camilla J. Roberts, James A. Tobin, Linda M. Harvey Where You Live Influences Who You Know: Differences in Student Interaction Based on Residence Hall Design Alison Brandon, Joan B. Hirt, Tracey Cameron The Educational Role in College Student Housing Harold C. Riker, David A. DeCoster A Commentary on The Educational Role in College Student Housing Carolyn Palmer, Ellen M. Broido, Jo Campbell Southern Maine Community College Portland, Maine Published by the Association of College & University Housing Officers International

7 Letter From the Editor To make research accessible to our members, the ACUHO-I Journal s editorial board is committed to providing research in a format members can understand... This issue of The Journal of College and University Student Housing represents my second as your editor, and it is our first regular issue with articles that have been submitted and reviewed through our editorial process (see page 94 for instructions for potential authors). While there was no official theme to this issue, during the editing process the idea of understanding and strengthening the emotional health of students repeatedly was evidenced in the articles. Despite the variety in research approaches, each article contains information that housing staffs can use to reinforce their role in improving students emotional and physical health. Senior housing officers share their perceptions about recruitment and retention of entry-level staff as part of an ACUHO-I commissioned research funded study by Steve St. Onge, Tom Ellett, and Eric Nestor. The perception of CHOs that finding qualified entrylevel staff and keeping them is a problem for other housing programs conflicts with their self-reports that this is not true for their own housing office. An emotionally healthy staff can be considered important as role models for the students with whom they work. This research offers ideas about ways to support staff so that they will want to remain in those important entry-level staff positions that work most directly with students on campus. Meanwhile, loneliness and its effect on students in residence halls is highlighted in an article by Elaine Eshbaugh. Her insights about students living on campus with a deficient network of social support as well as her ideas about how male and female students benefit from different kinds of relationships with peers, significant others, and family should allow housing staff to provide adequate support through programs, policies, and services, helping to provide a sense of belonging. T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

8 Correlations among disordered eating, living environment, and academic standing are considered in the article by Kimberly Fulcher and Steven Janosik. Their research reveals how women living on campus share their patterns of practices and thinking about food. The authors found that students in their study had healthier ideas and eating behaviors than was expected based on previous research with college students. They also discuss implications for housing professionals to help women on campus maintain a healthy lifestyle. Religious beliefs can provide emotional support for many students but can also create legal issues. These cases of religious expression for on-campus students and staff at public institutions are explored in a review of legal cases written by Christy Moran, Camilla Roberts, James Tobin, and Linda Harvey. This summary of relevant case law can help housing professionals who may be struggling with policies related to religious expression in residence halls, especially as they relate to questions about activities, décor, or policies. Understanding the law and the boundaries for expression of religion on campus can provide housing staff information in order to appropriately support students healthy religious expression. The relationship between students and their environment affects their well-being. In their article, Alison Brandon, Joan Hirt, and Tracey Cameron discuss the challenges of balancing students need for privacy and their preference for more personal space in apartment-style housing with the benefits of enhanced student interaction in more public traditional living units. Their look at the differences in the interaction patterns of students living in traditional and suite-style residence halls offers an informative look at means to avoid social isolation due to the physical segregation of the suite-style halls. Over the next year we hope also to provide real time communication among authors, potential authors, and members through Webbased discussions and current issues articles. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

9 Finally, I am particularly enthusiastic about introducing a new feature, Our Historical Spotlight, which highlights an article printed previously in the Journal and follows up with a current perspective on how that article is relevant or related to current practice. In this issue, the ideas presented in the first article published in our Journal, The Educational Role in College Student Housing by Harold Riker and David DeCoster (1971), are revisited by Carolyn Palmer, Ellen Broido, and Jo Campbell. The responsibility that housing professionals had for encouraging residence hall students and their learning in 1971 is contrasted with our current application of learning philosophy for on-campus residents. I hope that each of these articles will prove valuable to our readers. To make research accessible to our members, the ACUHO-I Journal s editorial board is committed to providing research in a format members can understand, making connections between theory and practical application and offering a venue where new authors develop writing skills and gain publishing credentials. Over the next year we hope also to provide real time communication among authors, potential authors, and members through Webbased discussions and current issues articles. There are several individuals who have given much of their time and effort to create these resources. However, this issue marks the end of many years of service to the editorial board for our two associate editors, Paul Jahr of Georgia College & State University and Craig Schmitt of the University of Dayton. These professionals T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

10 have given so much to the development of the Journal and to our association. I cannot thank them enough for their willingness to do whatever was required. Their commitment, work ethic, and team efforts will be missed, but both offer our association strong leadership in other roles, so we anticipate their continued contributions in these areas. I also want to recognize reviewers rotating off the editorial board after three or more years of service. Thanks go to Ginny Arthur, James Atkinson, Pam Boersig, Jeff Doyle, Vanessa Johnson, Tim Luckadoo, Stephanie Messer-Roy, Carolyn Palmer, and Ashok Roy for their careful attention to detail and willingness to provide feedback to authors. Thanks also are extended to three retiring reviewers, Ryan Davis, Von Stange, and Deborah Taub, who have been selected as associate editors. We look forward to their continuing expertise in moving the Journal forward, and I thank them in advance for the support and assistance they will provide in this new role. Thanks to all of you, our readers, for your continued support of the Journal. Your reading, writing, reviewing, and commenting help us better meet the needs of our ACUHO-I members. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus, Editor Associate Professor Educational Administration and Foundations Illinois State University pamcclu2@ilstu.edu V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

11 Factors Affecting Recruitment and Retention of Entry- Level Housing and Residential Life Staff: Perceptions of Chief Housing Officers Steven St. Onge, Ph.D. Vice President for Student Services Clinton Community College Thomas Ellett, Ph.D. Associate Vice President of Student Affairs New York University Eric M. Nestor Assistant Director Summer Programs, Assessment, Operations, and Technology Syracuse University University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 10 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

12 Through a funded research grant sponsored by the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I), this exploratory study is a comparative analysis of domestic and international housing and residence life programs focusing on issues of recruitment and retention of entry-level staff. Chief Housing Officers (CHOs) were asked to respond to questions describing recruitment and retention issues on their campuses and in the profession and to speculate on the factors that contribute to recruiting and retaining entry-level staff. The purpose of this study is to define the scope of issues related to recruitment and retention of entry-level housing and residence life staff and to understand factors influencing the recruitment and retention of staff in a diverse mix of housing operations. This article begins with a comprehensive review of the literature and an explanation of the research methodology, followed by a discussion of what we have learned. This study attempts to address that gap in the knowledge of housing professionals. As an outcome of this research project, recommendations are provided to Chief Housing Officers for improving recruitment and retention efforts for entry-level staff. Introduction Recruitment and retention of competent, if not excellent, housing and residential life staff are essential to our success as professionals and as a profession. Resident directors and other entry-level housing staff are in key positions, often having direct contact with and responsibility for resident students, as well as supervisory responsibility for paraprofessional staff in their residential buildings and complexes. They are significant influences for the education, leadership, and management in residence halls, whether in large systems or small, public or private. There is growing concern at many institutions that recruiting and retaining entry-level housing The purpose of this study is to define the scope of issues related to recruitment and retention of entrylevel housing and residence life staff and to understand factors influencing the recruitment and retention of staff in a diverse mix of housing operations. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

13 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor staff has become an overwhelming challenge. This challenge has been described as a crisis (ACUHO-I Leadership Assembly, 2002), seemingly complicated by high attrition rates for new staff in various areas of student affairs (Jones, 2002). Resident directors and other entry-level housing staff are in key positions, often having direct contact with and responsibility for resident students, as well as supervisory responsibility for paraprofessional staff in their residential buildings and complexes. They are significant influences for the education, leadership, and management in residence halls, whether in large systems or small, public or private. Concerns about effectively hiring and keeping young professionals, including residential life staff, are not new (ACPA & NASPA, 1988). References to the challenge of attracting talented people to the housing profession go back nearly 40 years (Schmidt, 2002). Prior to 1990, there was an acute and widely held understanding that recruitment and retention of young professionals was an ongoing and complex challenge in student affairs, including the student housing field (ACPA & NASPA, 1988). In 2002, ACUHO-I published The Recruitment and Retention of Housing Officers. This plan identified 15 factors that were given as reasons individuals did not consider a career in residence life/housing. These 15 items reflected three themes: (a) reasons for declining jobs, (b) reasons staff left their jobs in housing, and (c) quality of life issues (ACUHO-I, 2002). This research has helped better clarify the overall question of how to bring staff to our campuses and how to retain them and helped us to understand the history and scope of this issue. In a recent and comprehensive study on the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff, Belch and Mueller (2003) surveyed both senior housing officers and graduate students on the declining number of resident director candidates. In summary, their research indicated that quality of life, remuneration, and lack of interest in the residence life profession were significant issues (p. 29). Belch and Mueller (2003) reinforced the view held by many in our profession that the results [of our study] suggested that more exploration is necessary to understand the quality of life provided by the resident director experience, the discrepancies in the perception the role of salary plays in the decision-making process, and the issues that fuel a lack of interest in live-in residence life positions (p. 45). Recent efforts to determine the factors related to successful recruitment and retention of entry-level staff have focused on graduate students who were prospective employees (McIntosh & Ridzi, 2002) and staff members new to the profession (Nestor, Lebron, Axelsen, 12 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

14 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff Parker, & Phelps, 2002). There appears to be a paucity of research, however, on the perceptions of Chief Housing Officers (CHOs). This is an important perspective because it has been a topic of concern among CHOs for years without any substantive research to support or refute the notion that there is a shortage of qualified entry-level staff to fill positions. This article describes research undertaken to identify the problem of recruitment and retention of entry-level staff from an international perspective. More specifically, this research sought to identify the perceptions of CHOs regarding factors that influence recruitment and retention of staff entering the housing and residential life field at their institutions and in the profession. CHOs were asked to assess both the importance and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining new staff and to identify their beliefs about the most important factors in the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff in housing and residential life. Chief housing officers were chosen to respond to these questions as we considered them most likely to oversee the process of filling the entrylevel staffing positions and most likely to understand the issues related to the recruitment and retention for these positions. Methodology In November, 2004 a Web-based forced-choice and free-response survey developed by the researchers was sent by to 938 CHOs. These CHOs represented all ACUHO-I affiliated institutions from the nine domestic regions and the international member institutions in the two international regions. The focus of this survey was to identify the CHOs perceptions of the key challenges related to recruiting and retaining entry-level professionals in the housing and residence life field and specific factors related to those challenges. The survey was also designed to identify the extent of the problems associated with the recruitment and retention of housing and residence life staff CHOs were asked to assess both the importance and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining new staff and to identify their beliefs about the most important factors in the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff in housing and residential life. on the CHOs individual campuses and in the profession (i.e., at other institutions). For the purposes of this study, entry-level staff was defined as full-time staff that are primarily responsible for oversight of a residential facility/ facilities, including aspects of staff and student development (i.e., direct supervision of resident assistants/advisors, discipline, and programming), facilities and operational management, and emergency response. The research was designed to understand if this was a national or international phenomenon. Further, this study sought to identify which issues have the greatest positive impact on the processes of recruitment and retention of entry-level housing and residence life staff from the CHO perspective. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

15 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor The invitation to participate in the survey was introduced by an message sent from the ACUHO-I executive director to the chief housing officer of all ACUHO-I institutions. On three occasions, two weeks apart, a reminder was sent to non-respondents. Demographic data were collected in the areas of ACUHO-I regional affiliation, institutional size, and the type of institution. Respondents were also asked to identify the minimum level of education required (from no college degree through doctorate) for entry-level staff at their institution and whether these staff were required to live-in (in the residence for which they are responsible) or live-on campus (in a facility for which they are not directly responsible). For purposes of consistency, reported salary numbers were adjusted to U.S. currency calculated on the day the survey closed in November 2004 for responses collected outside the U.S. The core survey was composed of four parts. Part one of the survey asked the CHOs to check all benefits that they provided to entrylevel staff; part two involved the CHO listing the average tenure of their new staff; and part three asked the respondents to rate their perception about the level of concern regarding the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff on a 5-point scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree across a set of items. Specifically, respondents were asked (1) to identify whether they provided one or more of 15 specific benefits to their entry-level staff (e.g., health insurance, furnished apartment, professional development funds, and ability to have a cat or dog live in their on-campus apartment), (2) to categorize the length of time that their entrylevel housing and residence life staff remain in A majority of CHOs responding to the survey required their entrylevel staff to hold either a master s (31.2%) or a bachelor s (57.6%) degree. None required an earned doctorate or enrollment in a doctoral program; however, 6.2% expected their bachelor s-level new staff to be enrolled in a master s program (any kind), and 2.4% required a completed bachelor s degree as the degree requirement for the position. their positions from less than one year to more than four years and (3) the level of concern for recruitment and retention of entry-level staff at their own institution as well as for the housing and residence life profession as a whole. In the final section of the survey, CHOs were asked to respond to four questions regarding the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff in housing and residence life in general and on their campus: Question #1: Please share what you believe to be the three most important factors in successfully recruiting entry-level staff in housing and residence life. Question #2: Please share what you believe to be the three most important factors in successfully retaining entry-level staff in housing and residence life. 14 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

16 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff Question #3: Please list the three areas that you would like to improve on your own campus that would positively influence your campus ability to recruit entry-level staff in housing and residence life. Question #4: Please list the three areas that you would like to improve on your own campus that would positively influence your campus ability to retain entry-level staff in housing and residence life. Results The survey was sent to 938 CHOs at ACUHO-I institutions. Four hundred sixteen completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 44.5%. The respondents were from all 11 ACUHO-I regions. Responses ranged from a low of 5 and 6 respondents from the OACUHO and AACUHO regions, respectively, to a high of 71 and 74 respondents from the NEACUHO and SEAHO regions, respectively. Although this study was targeted internationally, responses were essentially U.S.-based. Table 1 offers a complete breakdown of responses by ACUHO-I region. The breakdown of responses by institutional type was 55.2% public and 44.8% private colleges and universities. The respondents institutional sizes (based on student enrollment) varied widely, with 42.9% being from institutions enrolling fewer than 5,000 students and nearly 15% being from institutions with enrollments greater than 20,000. The remaining breakdown of institutional size of the respondents was as follows: 5,001-10,000 (22.8%) and 10,001-20,000 (19.7%). A majority of CHOs responding to the survey required their entry-level staff to hold either a master s (31.2%) or a bachelor s (57.6%) degree. None required an earned doc- Table 1 Respondents Institutions: ACUHO-I Regional Affiliation Region Number Percent AACUHO (Australia) AIMHO (Intermountain) GLACUHO (Great Lakes) MACUHO (Mid Atlantic) NEACUHO (North East) NWACUHO (North West) OACUHO (Ontario) SEAHO (South Eastern) SWACUHO (South West) UMR-ACUHO (Upper Mid West) WACUHO (Western) TOTAL V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

17 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor torate or enrollment in a doctoral program; however, 6.2% expected their bachelor s-level new staff to be enrolled in a master s program (any kind), and 2.4% required a completed bachelor s degree as the degree requirement for the position. The standard for entry-level positions was to have a live-in requirement, representing 83.2% of respondents; followed by a live-on requirement, representing 11.5%; and no campus living requirement (live-off permitted), representing 5.3%. A majority of responses by CHOs on the length of time entry-level staff members at their institutions remained in their positions indi- cated 2-3 years (44.5%) or 3-4 years (26.7%). In fact, few staff stayed less than 2 years, with the smallest percentage being for entry-level staff being retained for less than 1 year (1.7%). Entry-Level Staff Benefits As a core part of the survey, respondents were asked to categorize the benefits made available to their entry-level staff. Respondents identified the average starting salary of entry-level housing and residence life staff as $24,213 per year, with a maximum starting salary (without benefits) of $42,000. The responses regarding benefits provided are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Benefits Available to Entry-Level Staff Benefit provided Number Percent Health benefits Retirement benefits Housing Tuition support Furnished apartment Professional development funds Ability to have fish as pets Flexible work schedule Meal plan (full) Parking space at no cost Campus gym membership Domestic partnership Parking space at a cost Ability to have cats/dogs as pets Meal plan (partial) Other* * Includes the following: free laundry or laundry stipend, cable, telephone, Internet, meals for family, vision/dental/life/disability/ prescription insurance, commuter transportation pass, vacation, free computer/laptop/pda/cell phone. 16 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

18 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff CHO Perceptions of Challenges and Factors Related to Recruitment and Retention The next series of questions asked respondents to identify issues related to the recruitment of entry-level staff at the CHO s institution and in the housing and residence life profession. A total of 39.7% of responding CHOs agreed or strongly agreed that recruit- ing entry-level staff is a primary concern for their institution (see Table 3). A total of 79.5% of responding CHOs agreed or strongly agreed that recruiting entry-level staff is a primary concern for the profession as a whole (other institutions) (see Table 4). The next series of questions asked respondents to identify issues related to the retention of entry-level staff at the CHO s institution and Table 3 Recruiting Entry-Level Staff in Housing and Residence Life Is a Primary Concern for My Institution Response Number Percent Strongly disagree % Disagree % Neither disagree nor agree % Agree % Strongly agree % TOTAL % Table 4 Recruiting Entry-Level Staff in Housing and Residence Life Is a Primary Concern for the Housing and Residence Life Profession Response Number Percent Strongly disagree % Disagree % Neither disagree nor agree % Agree % Strongly agree % TOTAL % V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

19 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor Table 5 Retaining Entry-Level Staff in Housing and Residence Life Is a Primary Concern for My Institution Response Number Percent Strongly disagree % Disagree % Neither disagree nor agree % Agree % Strongly agree % TOTAL % Table 6 Retaining Entry-Level Staff in Housing and Residence Life Is a Primary Concern for the Housing and Residence Life Profession Response Number Percent Strongly disagree % Disagree % Neither disagree nor agree % Agree % Strongly agree % TOTAL % in the housing and residence life profession. A total of 38% of responding CHOs agreed or strongly agreed that retaining entry-level staff is a primary concern for their institution (see Table 5). A total of 66.8% of responding CHOs also agreed or strongly agreed that retaining entry-level staff is a primary concern for the profession (other institutions) (see Table 6). Small Housing Operations Versus Large Housing Operations When the data are separated by small housing operations (defined as having fewer than 1,000 beds) versus larger housing operations (1,000 beds and more), a statistically significant difference was identified using a chi-square analysis to compare categorical data (see Tables 7 and 8). The first analysis demonstrated a significantly 18 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

20 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff different response from small versus large housing programs on the question of whether recruitment was a concern at the responding CHO s institution. Significant differences were found for the following statements: Retaining entry-level staff in housing and residence life is a primary concern for my institution and Recruiting entry-level staff in housing and residence life is a primary concern for my institution. When comparing small versus large housing operations on the question of retention on the CHOs campuses using a chisquare analysis, a significant difference was found. For smaller housing operations, retention of entry-level staff is a significant concern, while recruitment seems a concern for larger campuses. Table 7 Number of Beds Versus Recruiting Concern of Entry-Level Staff at Your Institution Status Recruiting Concern at Your Institution Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree nor agree 2 df p Fewer than 11.29% 29.84% 30.65% 25.00% 3.23% ,000 beds (n=14) (n=37) (n=38) (n=31) (n=4) 1,000 beds 6.51% 26.03% 22.95% 35.62% 8.90% 35 and more (n=19) (n=76) (n=67) (n=104) (n=26) * Table 8 Number of Beds Versus Retention of Entry-Level Staff at Your Institution Status Recruiting Concern at Your Institution Very Difficult Neither Easy Very difficult difficult easy nor easy 2 df p Fewer than 3.23% 36.29% 37.90% 21.77% 0.81% 1,000 beds (n=4) (n=45) (n=47) (n=27) (n=1) 1,000 beds 1.71% 16.10% 43.15% 31.85% 7.19% and more (n=5) (n=47) (n=126) (n=93) (n=21) <0.0001* V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

21 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor Factors Affecting Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff In responding to the survey, CHOs were asked to answer four open-ended questions regarding their perceptions of recruitment and retention of entry-level staff. For the first question, respondents identified the three most important factors in successfully recruiting entry-level staff to housing and residence life. The top responses were as follows: salary and benefits, including parking, meals, tuition, pets, and domestic partner benefits (29%); location (10%); availability of professional development funds (7%); and job responsibilities (6%). For question two, respondents identified the three most important factors in successfully retaining entry-level staff in housing and residence life. The top responses were as follows: opportunities for professional development (14%), salary and benefits (13%), supervision and support (11%), and opportunity for advancement (7%). Question three asked respondents to consider how to positively influence their campuses ability to recruit entry-level staff; respondents identified the three areas that they would like to improve on their own campus to positively influence their ability to recruit entry-level staff in housing and residence life. The top responses were as follows: salary and benefits (34%), living conditions for staff (19%), availability of professional development funds (10%), and improving the recruitment process (7%). The final question asked respondents to identify the three areas that they would improve on their own campus to positively influence their ability to retain entry-level staff in housing and residence life. The top responses were as follows: improving salary and benefits package (22%), improving living conditions/ quality of life of staff (16%), increasing professional development funding (11%), and opportunities for advancement (9%). Discussion One of the outcomes of this study is an understanding of the characteristics of entry-level positions on the respondents campuses. The most common profile shows that most entrylevel housing staff have completed their bachelor s degree (57.6%), live in a residence hall for which they are directly responsible (83.2%), and have been in their position 2-3 years. Institutions reported that both recruitment and retention were less of a problem on their campuses than they were for the housing and residence life profession as a whole. It seems from an analysis of the data that the perception of there being problems associated with the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff is exaggerated when compared with the realities of institutions. The norms are seemingly different than the reality. The data also indicated that most staff are staying, on average, 2-3 years in their positions, and very few (less than 2%) entry-level staff leave during their first year of work in this position. Over 60% of campus CHOs did not agree that recruitment is a problem on their campus, and an almost equal percentage (62%) did not agree that retention is a problem on their campus. These data led us to believe that the perception of the problem exaggerates the extent of the actual problem on most 20 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

22 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff campuses. The data from this study suggest that the issues of recruitment and retention may not be as problematic as many in the housing profession have previously believed. Indeed, with less than 2% of staff leaving mid-year with a calculated turn-over ratio of 14%, this study Although salary and benefits are important, housing professionals should not underestimate the importance of the availability of professional development opportunities, job duties, and supervision/support as key factors that candidates and staff consider when making decisions. These non-tangible aspects of the entry-level position may be key considerations for decisions made by potential and current staff. indicates that the problems of recruitment and retention are not as widespread as was initially believed (Jones, 2002). Of interest is that when large campuses are separated from small campuses, there is a difference in the scope of the recruitment and retention problem on individual campuses, with smaller campuses being at a distinct disadvantage in retaining entry-level staff. CHOs in this study also provided important information when asked what factors most influenced recruitment and retention and how they would suggest improving the issues of recruitment and retention on their campuses. To improve recruitment, they cited increased salary/benefits, a desirable location, availability of professional development funds, and the department s reputation as key issues. To improve retention, they cited opportunities for professional development, salary/benefits, supervision/support, and an opportunity for advancement. Although salary and benefits are important, housing professionals should not underestimate the importance of the availability of professional development opportunities, job duties, and supervision/support as key factors that candidates and staff consider when making decisions (Belch & Mueller, 2003). These non-tangible aspects of the entry-level position may be key considerations for decisions made by potential and current staff. Implications for Future Research One outcome of this study was an apparent difference in how CHOs rated the problems with recruitment and retention on their campus versus other campuses. Their perception was that the problem was larger elsewhere than it was on their own campuses. In exploring the issues surrounding CHO ratings of issues affecting their campuses relative to recruitment and retention, CHOs on smaller campuses have a greater concern with both recruitment and retention on their campuses than do CHOs on larger campuses. This concern could be because some CHOs V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

23 Steven St. Onge Thomas Ellett Eric M. Nestor on larger campuses believe there are more resources or greater name recognition for their campus, or they simply find themselves in a more appealing location. The issue of different challenges facing small schools relative to larger campuses could be explored in greater detail through future research. Also, greater attention is needed on the differences found in private versus public institutions in both the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff. This study focused on ACUHO-I member institutions and did not consider non-acuho- I institutions. Future studies should include non-acuho-i institutions and explore the possibility that differences may exist between ACUHO-I institutions and non-acuho-i institutions. Community colleges should also be included in future research, as residential programs are growing in this segment of campus populations, and they may not be ACUHO-I participating campuses. Further, because this study did not achieve the international perspective that we had planned, future research should examine this question from an international perspective. This study has certain limitations that warrant discussion. First, responding institutions were self-selected and not completely representative of ACUHO-I institutions worldwide and in fact seem concentrated in the Northeast. Secondly, having CHOs answer survey questions produces a different result than if the entry-level staff were to respond to the same questions. Since our study was looking at a systems issue, we felt that it was most appropriate to focus on CHO responses, though an argument could be made for using responses from the entry-level staff serving in those positions. Conclusion The challenge of identifying and sustaining adequate pools of highly qualified, well prepared, and committed staff members to work in entrylevel positions at our institutions, whether public or private, large or small, remains a topic of conversation among housing and residential life professionals across ACUHO-I. The recruitment, retention, development, and advancement of entry-level professionals are critical to any organization. This article explored these relationships and the ways in which both supervisors and new professionals may ensure a positive foundation for the lifelong success of the student affairs field. It challenged the conventional wisdom about both the scope and the severity of the challenges of recruiting and retaining entry-level housing staff. Our chief finding is that perhaps the problem is less significant than the myth surrounding it. Though smaller institutions seem to suffer the difficulty of recruiting and retaining entry-level housing staff, the profession as a whole does not seem to have a great difficulty in this area, according to the perceptions of CHOs. 22 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

24 Recruitment and Retention of Entry-Level Staff References ACUHO-I Leadership Assembly (2002, July). The recruitment and retention of housing officers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I), Orlando, FL: Authors. American College Personnel Association (ACPA) & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). (1988). The recruitment, preparation, and nurturing of the student affairs professional (A report of the Task Force on Professional Preparation and Practice), Washington, DC: Authors. Belch, H., Bleiberg, S., Christopher, J., Dunkel, N., Ellett, T., Scheuermann, T., & St. Onge, S. (2004). Entry-Level Resident Director Position Work Group. (Grant Proposal). Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). Belch, H. A., & Mueller, J. A. (2003). Candidate pools or puddles: Challenges and trends in the recruitment and hiring of resident directors. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), Jahr, P. K. (1990, November). Recruitment and preparation: Our future. ACUHO-I Talking Stick, 6-7. Jones, D. P. (2002). College housing professionals at the crossroads. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 31(1), Krajnak, K. (2001, Fall). ACUHO-I staffing think tank: Recommendations to the association. Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). McIntosh, J., & Ridzi, F. (2002). ACUHO-I graduate student survey: Assessment report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Nestor, E., Lebron, M., Axelsen, K., Parker, S., & Phelps, S. (2002). Housing and residence life professionals recruitment and retention survey report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Schmidt, J. (2002, April). Presidential perspective. ACUHO-I Talking Stick, 19(6), 2. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

25 Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness Among Residence Hall Students Elaine M. Eshbaugh, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Family Studies University of Northern Iowa Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee 24 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

26 Social support includes having someone to talk to, feeling a sense of belongingness, and being provided emotional comfort. The effects of gender, social support from friends, social support from family, and social support from romantic partners was investigated using a sample of 316 Midwestern college students living in residence halls. Significant gender by social support interactions were found, indicating that the relationship between social support and loneliness was different for men than women. For instance, social support from friends was important in preventing loneliness for women but not for men. Support from romantic partners significantly predicted lower levels of loneliness for both women and men, but results suggested that support from romantic partners may be more important in preventing loneliness among women. Lower family support was related to higher levels of loneliness for men. Yet, for women, family support was positively related to loneliness. In other words, women with more support from family were lonelier than women with less support from family. Implications for housing professionals are discussed. Because residents of on-campus housing are frequently surrounded by other people, one might downplay the existence of loneliness among these college students. Introduction Although satisfying social relationships are important for mental and physical health, many people are unable to establish and maintain them throughout their lifespans (Peplau & Perlman, 1984). Loneliness is an experience occurring when a person perceives a deficient network of social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1984). Not surprisingly, negotiating loneliness and developing and maintaining social relationships are key tasks in the transition from high school to college (Takahashi & Majima, 1994). Housing professionals are challenged by assisting students in managing their psychological well-being, including levels of loneliness, during this time (Cooke, Bewick, Barkham, Bradley, & Audin, 2006). In fact, it is estimated that most college freshmen experience acute loneliness (Berman & Sperling, 1991) and that 75% of college students V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

27 Elaine M. Eshbaugh in their first two weeks suffer significant loneliness (Cutrona, 1982). Although loneliness may subside with time, it is a major area of concern for college students when they seek psychological assistance from college and university counseling centers (Gallagher, Golin, & Kelleher, 1992). Because residents of on-campus housing are frequently surrounded by other people, one might downplay the existence of loneliness among these college students. Yet these emerging adults are also living away from their families (usually for the first time), and their previous social support network is not present. Because of the prevalence of loneliness among college students, it is important to study predictors and factors that may help to prevent loneliness in this population in order to make sound recommendations for housing professionals who are often confronted with lonely and homesick residents. In general, there are two causes of loneliness: individual factors, which are characteristics of the person (e.g., personality, need for intimacy); and social factors (e.g., daily contact with others, living situation, social support), which are characteristics of the person s social environment. This study focused on social rather than individual factors because of the tremendous change in social factors that many college students must adjust to during their transition to post-secondary education. More specifically, the importance of social support, including being able to share joys and sorrows, having someone to talk to, and being provided emotional comfort, was examined. Higher quality of friendships has been linked to lower levels of loneliness (Kraus, Davis, Bazzini, Church, & Kirchman, 1993). Among college students, it has even been suggested that friendships can compensate for the lack of a romantic relationship in preventing loneliness (Cutrona, 1982). More recent research on college students (Deniz, Hamarta, & Ari, 2005; Green, Richardson, Lago, & Schatten-Jones, 2001) has suggested that college students without romantic partners are lonelier than college students in relationships. Although college students may not live with their families, their families continue to provide support. Parents play an especially important role in the transition to college life (Adams, Ryan, & Keating, 2000; Mounts, 2004), and higher parental support is related to less loneliness among college students in their first semester (Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006). In summary, social support from friends, romantic partners, and family plays an important role in preventing loneliness among college students. This study simultaneously examined the link between all three sources of support and loneliness. Because previous research (e.g., Cheng & Furnham, 2002) has indicated that male adolescents may be lonelier than their female counterparts, I also examined gender differences and determined whether gender moderates the effect of the three sources of support on loneliness. This study contributes to the literature on loneliness among college students by focusing exclusively on residence hall students and examining the relative impact of sources of social support. While the link between social support and loneliness is well documented (e.g., Cutrona, 1982; Kraus et al., 1993; Mounts et al., 2006), this research investigated the role of various sources of support (rather than global 26 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

28 Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness support or support from only one source) in students who are transitioning to college and living away from their families in residence halls. These students may be experiencing significant instability within their social systems, and this instability makes it difficult to determine the sources of support that may be most important. In general, there are two causes of loneliness: individual factors, which are characteristics of the person (e.g., personality, need for intimacy); and social factors (e.g., daily contact with others, living situation, social support), which are characteristics of the person s social environment. Method Students living in three randomly selected residence halls at a mid-sized Midwestern university were mailed two different questionnaires in spring Residence hall students were targeted because most students who live in the residence halls are in their first or second year at this university and are perhaps still experiencing the transition to college. In addition, these students are living away from their families, usually for the first time. Of 495 questionnaires mailed (300 to women and 195 to men), 316 (64%) were returned. The re- sponse rate was 78% for women and 42% for men. Students who completed the survey were eligible to win small prizes from local businesses. Seventy-four percent of participants were female. Eight-seven percent were either freshmen or sophomores. Of the remaining 13%, all but three students were juniors. At this university, most upperclassmen who live in residence halls are community college transfers. Therefore, upperclassman remained in the sample because it was assumed that most were in their first year living away from home. The mean age was (SD = 1.07). Over 98% of participants identified themselves as White/European-American. Survey instruments filled out by students are described in the following section. Measures Social Support. Participants completed the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) to assess social support from friends, significant others, and family. The 12-item scale uses a 7-point Likert-type response format (1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = mildly disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = mildly agree, 6 = strongly agree, 7 = very strongly agree). Each of the three sources of support is assessed by four items. Each of the three sources (friends, significant other, and family) has a possible scoring range of 4 to 28. Cronbach s alpha is a statistic used to determine if the internal consistency of a measure is acceptable. In general, Cronbach s alphas of.70 or higher are considered acceptable. In this study, Cronbach s alphas for the subscales ranged from.91 (family and friends) to.93 (significant other). V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

29 Elaine M. Eshbaugh Loneliness. The UCLA Loneliness Scale, a 20-item measure, was used to measure whether one s social contacts meet his or her needs (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Participants respond on a 4-point Likert scale where 1 = I have never felt this way, 2 = I have felt this way rarely, 3 = I have felt this way sometimes, and 4 = I have felt this way often. Scores range from 20 to 80. The scale assesses global loneliness, rather than loneliness in a specific context (e.g., the workplace) or the lack of a specific type of relationship (e.g., romantic relationship), and is one of the most widely used loneliness measures. Cronbach s alpha in the present study was.92. Multicollinearity Issues When independent variables are correlated, estimations of regression coefficients can be problematic because the variances of the parameter estimates may be inflated. Tolerance values can be computed to assess multicollinearity. A value of near one indicates independence; if the value is close to zero, the variables are multicollinear or highly re- dundant. Tolerance values that exceed the.25 threshold level indicate an absence of problematic multicollinearity. Results The mean for loneliness was on a scale of 20 to 80 (SD = 10.14). The means for social support, on a scale of 4 to 28, were as follows: friend (M = 23.39, SD = 3.15), significant other (M = 24.19, SD = 3.71), and family (M = 23.91, SD = 4.09). This indicates that, in general, most students felt a high level of social support. A correlation describes the strength and direction of a relationship between two variables. Zero-order correlations are shown in Table 1. A hierarchical step-wise linear regression was performed to examine the effect of gender, the three sources of social support, and gender by support interactions on loneliness (see Table 2). Regression is a statistical technique used to predict the value of an outcome variable based on one or more predictor variables. In the first step, gender was the only predictor variable, F (1, 314) = 69.11, p <.01, with being Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations of Predictor and Outcome Variables (N = 316) gender Loneliness Social support Social support (male=0; female=1) friends family Loneliness -.44** Social support friends.36** -.60** Social support family.23* -.44**.66** Social support sig other.23* -.56**.54**.55** *p <.05 **p < T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

30 Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness Table 2 Hierarchical Stepwise Regression Predicting Loneliness (N = 316) Model 1 Std. Beta t p Gender (male=0; female=1) Model 2 Gender Support family Support friends Support sig other Model 3 Gender Support family Support friends Support sig other Support family*gender Support friends*gender Support sig other*gender Model 1 R 2 =.19; R 2 d =.00 Model 2 R 2 =.53; R 2 d =.00 Model 3 R 2 =.56; R 2 d =.00 male significantly predicting higher levels of loneliness. Nineteen percent of variance in loneliness was predicted by gender alone. In the second step, gender and the three sources of support were predictor variables, F (4, 311) = 81.33, p <.01. This model predicted 53% of variance in loneliness, a significant increase (p <.01) from step 1. Higher levels of support from friends and significant others were significantly related to lower levels of loneliness. To address the issue of redundancy between the independent variables (multicollinearity), tolerances were computed for all predictor variables and ranged from.42 to.81. The tolerance values in this analysis exceed the.25 threshold level and indicate an absence of problematic multicollinearity. In the third step, interactions for gender and sources of support (centered) were added as predictor variables, F (7, 308) = 52.04, p <.01. The variance accounted for by this model (56%) was a significant increase over the variance accounted for by step 2 (p <.01). All three interaction variables were statistically significant. Further examination revealed that friend support significantly predicted lower levels of loneliness for women but not men. Support from a significant other predicted lower levels of loneliness for women and men, but the relationship was stronger for women, indicating that a romantic partner may be more important in preventing loneliness for women than men. Given the attention to the importance of relationships that current students have with V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

31 Elaine M. Eshbaugh their parents, the most interesting finding of this study was regarding family support. The level of family support significantly predicted loneliness for men, meaning that men with more family support were less lonely. In contrast, family support was positively related to loneliness for women. In other words, women who had more family support were lonelier. To address potential multicollinearity, tolerances were computed for all predictor variables (gender, friend support, family support, significant other support, all interactions) and ranged from.27 to.49. Again, this indicates that the level of redundancy between predictor variables is acceptable. Discussion In both correlational and regression analysis, men in this study were lonelier than women. Therefore, this study corroborates previous research (e.g., Cheng & Furnham, 2002) suggesting that male adolescents are lonelier than female adolescents. Also, in general, the results of the present investigation are aligned with previous research (Deniz et al., 2005; Green et al., 2001; Mounts et al., 2006) indicating that social support in general is an important factor in preventing loneliness among college students. Social support, gender, and gender by social support variables accounted for over 50% of the variance in loneliness. However, the results were not without unexpected findings. First, whereas support from friends played a large role in preventing loneliness among women, this was not the case for men. Men may have less intimate relationships with friends (Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985), and perhaps this gender difference in friendship is responsible for the moderation effect. In addi- Although discussion of intervention strategies is useful and necessary, preventative methods are ideal. Perhaps by understanding which residents are most vulnerable to loneliness, housing professionals can use both formal (e.g., programs designed to foster connections among residents) and informal (e.g., casually introducing fellow residents) strategies to combat loneliness before it becomes a serious problem. This is particularly important when one acknowledges that most lonely students do not seek help. tion, the link between significant other support and lower levels of loneliness was stronger among women than men, indicating that men may rely less on a romantic partner than do women. A particularly interesting result was the moderating effect of gender on the impact of family support on loneliness. For men, more family support was related to less loneliness. For women, more family support was related to more loneliness. Although purely speculative, a possible explanation is that college women 30 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

32 Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness living in residence halls who have more supportive families may miss their families more than women who do not have supportive families. Perhaps this is a phenomenon that is not present with men because independence among men may be more encouraged by their families and society. It is possible, also, that families expect a daughter to be in closer contact with home after moving away. One must interpret these findings with caution because this study was limited in scope. First, although respondents were provided incentives for returning the surveys, the achieved response rate of 64% was somewhat disappointing. The male response rate of 42% was particularly weak. Also, a primary limitation is the high proportion of females (74%) who participated in this research. Comparing loneliness by gender and examining the moderating effects of gender would be more ideal if the proportions of college men and women in this study were more similar. In addition, over 98% of this sample identified as White/European-American. It is possible that the relative importance of support from friends, significant others, and family may differ culturally. Unfortunately, the limited ethnic diversity in this sample did not allow for tests to compare how various ethnicities may experience support and loneliness. Despite these limitations, this preliminary study provides a basis for future research on gender, social support, and loneliness among college students. Perhaps it would be useful to conduct a longitudinal study of incoming freshmen and follow these students throughout their college years to explore how the relative impact of friends, significant others, and family support on loneliness might change over time. Such methodology would be able to examine causal effects and determine whether lower levels of social support were related to later increased loneliness. Another possibility is that lonely students fail to seek out socially supportive connections. In addition, individual factors, such as personality (Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Ponzetti, 1990), play a role in predicting loneliness, and these factors were not addressed in this study. It may be useful to explore the interplay between social and individual factors when investigating depression among college students. This research has implications for college and university housing professionals. If students are experiencing loneliness, professionals may suggest that these students seek out social support by visiting, calling, or ing friends and family in an effort to remedy that loneliness. However, housing professionals may want to consider different strategies for male and female residents. For women, developing and maintaining strong friendship ties may decrease loneliness. Housing professionals may want to encourage lonely female residents to become involved in campus or residence hall activities such as clubs or volunteer experiences where they are likely to make friends. According to this study, women who live in residence halls and indicate higher levels of loneliness may be those who are particularly close to their families. Housing professionals should try to help these women appreciate their family support without focusing on the void created by living away from their family. Perhaps lonely men living in residence halls would be helped by encouragement to connect more with family members. According to this study, men who indicate high levels of family V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

33 Elaine M. Eshbaugh support are less lonely. Housing professionals may help men decrease loneliness by suggesting they stay in contact with their families and seek family support by regular and frequent phone or contact and by planning occasional home visits. Of course, due to the limitations and correlational nature of this study, more research is needed to support these conclusions. Although discussion of intervention strategies is useful and necessary, preventative methods are ideal. Perhaps by understanding which residents are most vulnerable to loneliness, housing professionals can use both formal (e.g., programs designed to foster connections among residents) and informal (e.g., casually introducing fellow residents) strategies to combat loneliness before it becomes a serious problem. This is particularly important when one acknowledges that most lonely students do not seek help (Rook & Peplau, 1982). Although loneliness can be a normative experience for college students, it can also have a negative influence on psychological and physical well-being (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006). Furthermore, loneliness has also been strongly linked to depression (Mahon, Yarcheski, & Yarcheski, 2001). Because of the ramifications of chronic loneliness, housing professionals should take opportunities to informally encourage residents to seek social support and should also work to design programs that are proactive in preventing loneliness by allowing students to gain and maintain socially supportive networks. Although more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of loneliness interventions among college students, some general ideas for preventing and treating loneliness have been presented (see Andersson, 1998). For instance, housing professionals can work to build a unified neighborhood or community of residents. This could be accomplished by setting a joint goal or aim for the group. Another idea to unify residents might involve restructuring the environment to increase common space and decrease isolation. Social skills training can also be used in order to help shy students establish a sense of confidence in interacting with others. Trainings such as this might help individuals seek out social contacts, increase their self-disclosure in relationships, and possibly restructure their social encounters. Because of the possible ramifications of loneliness among college students, further exploration of these ideas and development of new loneliness prevention strategies is certainly worthwhile. References Adams, G. R., Ryan, B. A., & Keating, L. (2000). Family relationships, academic environments, and psychological development during the university experience: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, Andersson, L. (1998). Loneliness research and interventions: A review of the literature. Aging & Mental Health, 2, Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1991). Parental attachment and emotional distress in the transition to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

34 Brief Report: Gender, Social Support, and Loneliness Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25, Cooke, R., Bewick, B. M., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K. (2006). Measuring, monitoring and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34, Cutrona, C. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In L. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp ). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Deniz, M. E., Hamarta, E., & Ari, R. (2005). An investigation of social skills and loneliness levels of university students with respect to their attachment styles in a sample of Turkish students. Social Behavior and Personality, 2005, 33, Gallagher, R. P., Golin, A., & Kelleher, K. (1992). The personal career and learning skill needs of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, Green, L. R., Richardson, D. S., Lago, T., & Schatten- Jones, E. C. (2001). Network correlates of social and emotional loneliness in young and older adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, Kraus, L. A., Davis, M. H., Bazzini, D., Church, M., & Kirchman, C. M. (1993). Personal and social influences on loneliness: The mediating effect of social provisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, Mahon, N. E., Yarcheski, A., & Yarcheski, J. T. (2001). Mental health variables and positive health practices in early adolescents. Psychological Reports, 88, Mounts, N. S. (2004). Contributions of parenting and campus climate to freshmen adjustment in a multi-ethnic sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, Mounts, N. S., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., & Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1984). Loneliness research: A survey of empirical findings. In L. A. Peplau & S. E. Goldston (Eds.), Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and persistent loneliness (pp ). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health. Ponzetti, J. J. (1990). Loneliness among college students. Family Relations, 39, Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, Rook, K., & Peplau, L. (1982). Perspectives on helping the lonely. In L. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp ). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, M. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, Takahashi, K., & Majima, N. (1994). Transition from home to college dormitory: The role of preestablished affective relationships in adjustment to a new life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

35 The Relationship of Disordered Eating Behaviors of Undergraduate Women, Their Living Environment, and Their Academic Standing Kimberly T. Fulcher, M.A. Ed. Higher Education Virginia Tech Steven M. Janosik Associate Professor, Higher Education Virginia Tech Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 34 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

36 The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of reported disordered eating behaviors with on-campus living environment and academic standing. Specifically, the behaviors of women who lived in co-ed residence halls were compared with the behaviors of women who lived in single-sex residence halls. Behaviors of first year women were also compared to the behaviors of upperclass women. Respondents included 497 female undergraduate students living on campus in four residence halls at a large research university in the southeastern United States. Information was collected through an Internet-based survey. Three of 28 survey items were found to have significant differences related to academic standing, and no items were found to have significant differences with respect to living environment. Overall, given their scores on the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, participants reported a healthy outlook about their diet, body image, and behaviors, with few students indicating problems in such areas. Their Living Environment and Their Academic Standing Since the mid-1980s the growing prevalence of eating disorders such as Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia among college students has become an increasing concern among student affairs and counseling professionals (Fairburn, Welch, Dol, Davies, & O Connor, 1997; Kaminski & McNamara, 1996; Martin, 1993; Meyer & Russell, 1998). Berg (1988, p. 125) has described Anorexia Nervosa as a multidimensional syndrome characterized by self-starvation in the relentless pursuit of a thin body. Another main characteristic of Anorexia Nervosa is the genuine feeling that a person s body is too large, despite a body weight that is at least 15% lower than what is deemed normal for a person s body structure (Sarason & Sarason, 1999). Sarason and Sarason listed several ways that Anorexia Nervosa harms the body, such as retarded bone growth, anemia, The high prevalence rates of eating disorders in college students become even more important when associated with research indicating that individuals with eating disorders will frequently suffer in secrecy without seeking help. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

37 Kimberly T. Fulcher Steven M. Janosik dry skin, altered basal metabolism rate, decreased heart rate, cardiac arrhythmia, esophagus deterioration, and low body temperature. In addition, they stated, up to 20% of anorexic patients who do not respond to therapy are likely to die as a result of the disorder (Sarason & Sarason, 1999, p. 456). Bulimia Nervosa as a clinical disorder was first introduced by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980 (Berg, 1988). Sarason and Sarason (1999) suggested that the two most essential characteristics of Bulimia Nervosa are binge-eating and attempts to compensate for weight gain through inappropriate methods such as vomiting, laxative abuse, and speeding the progression of caloric digestion (e.g., excessive exercise and use of saunas). Researchers have been unable to agree on the prevalence rates of Bulimia Nervosa for women due to a wide range of significant percentage rates (from 3.9% to 23.0%) among individual studies (Berg, 1988; Gray & Ford, 1985; Holleran, Pascale, & Fraley, 1998; Kashubeck, Marchand-Martella, Neal, & Larsen, 1997; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, Frensch, & Rodin, 1989). Most alarmingly, Striegel-Moore et al. (1989) found the prevalence rates among college females for binge-eating patterns to be as high as 90% and for vomiting patterns to be approximately 12%. Studies of undergraduates found that the number of women who exhibit some degree of disordered eating behaviors ranged from 61% to 65% (Gray & Ford, 1985; Kashubeck et al., 1997; Meyer & Russell, 1998). In addition, Kaminski and McNamara (1996) reported that only 33% of female college students regularly engage in normal (i.e., healthy) eating behaviors, described as eating balanced meals at regular intervals. The high prevalence rates of eating disorders in college students become even more important when associated with research indicating that individuals with eating disorders will frequently suffer in secrecy without seeking help (Fairburn et al., 1997). Despite limited studies in this particular area, researchers suggest that college students have significantly higher degrees of DEBs than other populations. More specifically, some researchers propose that the campus environment and the transition into college encourage such behaviors among vulnerable residents. Contemporary research focuses on the vulnerability of college students (primarily first year students) to the development of disordered eating behaviors (DEBs). Despite limited studies in this particular area, researchers suggest that college students have significantly higher degrees of DEBs than other populations (Berg, 1988; Kashubeck et al., 1997; Striegel- Moore et al., 1989). More specifically, some researchers propose that the campus environment and the transition into college encourage such behaviors among vulnerable residents (Berg, 1988; Browers, 1988; Striegel-Moore et al., 1989; Thombs, Rosenberg, Mahoney, & 36 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

38 Disordered Eating Behaviors Daniel, 1996). Given the prevalence of DEBs among college women and the health risks involved when these behaviors are not diagnosed in a timely manner, more research is warranted. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to provide an increased understanding of DEBs among undergraduate women living on campus at a large research university in the southeastern United States. For the purpose of this study, the definition of DEBs included feelings and behaviors associated with the recognition and diagnosis of clinical eating disorders (specifically Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa). Our goal as researchers was not to classify students with specific eating disorders, but to determine the degree to which women at this institution engaged in behaviors related to eating disorders, such as eating or drinking in secrecy or purging after eating. Moreover, this study focused on the comparisons of specific on-campus living environments (i.e., co-ed and single-sex traditional residence halls) and academic standing (i.e., first year and upperclass students) with reported DEBs. A review of previous literature showed a limited focus on such issues, and this study is an attempt to further such research. Research Questions The following questions guided this research: 1. Are there differences between the reported DEBs of female students living in co-ed and single-sex residence halls? 2. Are there differences between the reported DEBs of freshman and non-freshman female students? Methodology Sample Selection The sample for this study included undergraduate female students living in campus residence halls during a spring semester at a large research university in the southeastern United States (N= 1,220). The study was restricted to four residence halls due to a variety of factors including the costs associated with administering the questionnaire. The recruitment of participants involved three s that were sent to all female residents of the four halls. To ensure privacy, the addresses were suppressed and sent as a blind carbon copy. The first came from the Director of Residence Life and included (a) an indication of departmental approval, (b) a statement of the study s purpose, (c) a statement about how the data set would be used, and (d) a statement about how students could participate. This information was sent to ensure that students felt secure in accessing the survey link provided in subsequent s. The second contained information regarding informed consent, confidentiality, the Web site link for the survey, and researcher contact information. The third e- mail contained a thank you to those who had completed the survey or a second request to those who had not completed the survey. Instrumentation Due to the descriptive nature of this study, a survey method was used because of its ability to generalize from a sample to a population so that inferences can be made about some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this population (Creswell, 1994, p. 118). The survey for this study included an electronic questionnaire V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

39 Kimberly T. Fulcher Steven M. Janosik that was composed of four demographic questions and a modified version of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) (Garner, 1991). The decision to use a Web-based survey sent to students via was based on several factors: (a) the institution was technologically oriented, (b) participants were assured of privacy, and (c) the survey was cost-effective. Demographic information was collected to connect the survey information with the variables of the study and to ensure that the sample parameters (i.e., living environment and academic status) were maintained. First, students were asked to identify their academic year by selecting from a drop-down list (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or none of the above). Second, students identified their living environment by selecting their residence hall in a similar fashion. The third and fourth items were included to ensure sample validation, where students were asked to select their age and gender, respectively. A modified version of the EDI-2 was used in this study (with permission of the author). The EDI-2 measures an overall perspective of behaviors and feelings associated with Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa (Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983). The EDI-2 is one of the few surveys that focuses on behaviors associated with Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa and has been used in many similar research studies. Scoring of the EDI-2 includes the sum total of all the responses, with higher scores representing higher levels of disordered eating. Participants responded to each item based on a 6-point Likert scale: 6=always, 5=usually, 4=often, 3=sometimes, 2=rarely, and 1=never. For the purpose of this study, item responses were treated as ordinal data. This decision was made based on the intent of the current study, which was to understand feelings and behaviors, as opposed to identifying specific eating disorders. Therefore, ordinal data provided the researcher with a more detailed analysis of the types of responses given for each survey item. Comparing scale scores, for example, was not the focus of this inquiry. The complete EDI-2 includes 91 items from 11 scales. In the current study, we used 28 items from four scales. The four scales were chosen due to their relationship to both Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia. Researchers have found that participants with Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa score significantly higher on the Bulimia, Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction, and Perfectionism scales of the EDI-2 (Garner et al., 1983; Wear & Pratz, 1987). The Bulimia scale relates to uncontrollable tendencies toward bingeing and purging, a principal feature of Bulimia Nervosa. Drive for Thinness focuses on a desire to lose weight and an intense fear of gaining weight. The Body Dissatisfaction scale assesses an individual s belief in and dissatisfaction with body parts perceived as being too large and is commonly suggested as a preliminary factor in eating disorder development. Finally, the Perfectionism scale identifies the desire for extraordinary personal achievement and the individual energy expended to meet such expectations. Although this scale may seem unrelated to the other three, its characteristics have been found to be a central theme in the development of Anorexia Nervosa, and researchers suggest that it is this category that breaks down in the face of increasing pressures to succeed (Garner et al., 1983, p. 18). Understanding the components of the four individual scales helped to 38 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

40 Disordered Eating Behaviors... the Perfectionism scale identifies the desire for extraordinary personal achievement and the individual energy expended to meet such expectations. Although this scale may seem unrelated to the other three, its characteristics have been found to be a central theme in the development of Anorexia Nervosa, and researchers suggest that it is this category that breaks down in the face of increasing pressures to succeed. clarify the context of the modified EDI-2 used in this study. Researchers found the overall EDI-2 survey and the 11 scales to have high levels of consistency (Wear & Pratz, 1987). In fact, Wear and Pratz found the overall EDI-2 reliability to be excellent using Cronbach s alpha (r=.96), indicating that the scores could be used to determine differences between individuals. The results for the individual scales ranged from.65 to.96. Reliability scores for the four scales used in this study include (a) Bulimia=.90, (b) Drive for Thinness=.85, (c) Body Dissatisfaction=.90, and (d) Perfectionism=.82 (Garner et al., 1983). In terms of concurrent validity, Wear and Pratz (1987) found that 88-93% of subjects were correctly identified based on their disorder and behaviors. Despite high reliability rates, Garner et al. (1983) suggest several precautions for application associated with the EDI-2: (a) inaccuracies may occur based on the self-report nature of the survey, (b) inaccuracies may occur based on the secretive and highly personal nature of eating disorders, and (c) the survey is not intended as a complete method of intake for diagnoses of eating disorders. Data Analysis The intent of the data analysis was to determine if respondents differed in their responses regarding their own feelings and behaviors as represented by the items found in four scales of the modified EDI-2. More specifically, we were interested in response comparisons based on living environment and academic standing. We tested for differences using the chi-square test of significance. Before we conducted the item analysis, we collapsed the six response options into three response sets (Usually-Always, Sometimes-Often, and Never-Rarely). This gave us larger frequencies to each response option. One of the underlying assumptions of the chi-square test is that cell sizes should be greater than five. Collapsing six responses to three helped ensure that the data would meet the underlying assumption of the statistic. Results Characteristics of the Respondents The initial sample for this study included all undergraduate women in four residence halls (N=1,220). We contacted all residents for participation in the study via , and 497 (41%) students completed the online survey. The respondent group, based on living environment and academic status, was representa- V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

41 Kimberly T. Fulcher Steven M. Janosik Table 1 Sample (N=1,200) and Respondent (n=497) Demographic Distributions Sample Respondents Variable N %N n %n Living environment Co-ed Single-sex Academic standing Freshman Non-freshman tive of the sample (see Table 1). Respondents included 370 first year students and 122 upperclass students. Five students did not indicate the type of hall in which they lived, resulting in 492 total surveys for analysis based on this independent variable. The respondent group included 311 students in co-ed residence halls and 185 students in single-sex residence halls. One participant did not respond to the item on Academic Standing, resulting in 496 total surveys for analysis based on this independent variable. Differences by Group When we tested for differences by living environment, we found no significant differences for any of the 28 survey items (see Table 2). Based on this study, the type of living environment has no influence on reported DEBs. In our second analysis, we wanted to examine the relationship between reported DEBs of first year and upperclass female students. Significant relationships were found for three items (15, 16, and 22). First year respondents were more likely than upperclass respondents to report that they were preoccupied with the desire to be thinner (c 2 =6.416, df=2, p=.040). Upperclass respondents were more likely than first year respondents to report that they hate being less than best at things (c 2 =8.576, df=2, p=.014). Upperclass respondents were also more likely than first year respondents to report that they must do things perfectly, or not do them at all (c 2 =6.550, df=2, p=.038). These results are found in Table 3. Discussion A perfectionist outlook directly correlates to the development of DEBs and eating disorders, according to research studies (Berg, 1988; Sarason & Sarason, 1999; Browers, 1988; Kashubeck et al., 1997). In addition, researchers list low expectations of future success and low motivation levels as risk factors for Bulimia Nervosa (Etringer, Altmaier, & Bowers, 1989; Kaminski & McNamara, 1996; Browers, 1988). When individual items were examined, large numbers of respondents in the current study usually or always thought of themselves in four ways: (a) as children, they tried to avoid disappointing parents and teachers, (b) they hate being less than best at things, (c) their parents expect ex- 40 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

42 Table 2 Response Option Frequencies and Chi-Square Results by Living Environment by Item NR SO UA Item CE SS CE SS CE SS 2 p 1. I can eat sweets and carbohydrates without feeling nervous. 2. I think that my stomach is too big I eat when I am upset I stuff myself with food I think about dieting I think that my thighs are too large I feel extremely guilty after overeating Only outstanding performance is good enough in my family. 9. I am terrified of gaining weight I feel satisfied with the shape of my body. 11. I exaggerate or magnify the importance of weight. 12. I have gone on binges where I have felt that I could not stop. 13. As a child, I tried very hard to avoid disappointing my parents and teachers. 14. I like the shape of my buttocks I am preoccupied with the desire to be thinner. 16. I hate being less than best at things I think about bingeing (overeating) My parents have expected excellence of me. 19. I think that my hips are too big I eat moderately in front of others and stuff myself when they re gone. 21. If I gain a pound, I worry that I will keep gaining. 22. I feel that I must do things perfectly or not do them at all. 23. I have thought of trying to vomit in order to lose weight. 24. I think that my thighs are just the right size. 25. I think that my buttocks are too large I eat or drink in secrecy I think that my hips are just the right size. 28. I have extremely high goals Note. df=2 for all items, n=497. Some totals may not equal n due to missing item responses. NR=Never, Rarely, SO=Sometimes, Often, UA=Usually, Always, CE=Co-Ed, SS=Single-Sex. 41

43 Table 3 Response Option Frequencies and Chi-Square Results by Academic Standing by Item NR SO UA Item F U F U F U 2 p 1. I can eat sweets and carbohydrates without feeling nervous. 2. I think that my stomach is too big I eat when I am upset I stuff myself with food I think about dieting I think that my thighs are too large I feel extremely guilty after overeating Only outstanding performance is good enough in my family. 9. I am terrified of gaining weight I feel satisfied with the shape of my body. 11. I exaggerate or magnify the importance of weight. 12. I have gone on binges where I have felt that I could not stop. 13. As a child, I tried very hard to avoid disappointing my parents and teachers. 14. I like the shape of my buttocks I am preoccupied with the desire * to be thinner. 16. I hate being less than best at things * 17. I think about bingeing (overeating) My parents have expected excellence of me. 19. I think that my hips are too big I eat moderately in front of others and stuff myself when they re gone. 21. If I gain a pound, I worry that I will keep gaining. 22. I feel that I must do things perfectly * or not do them at all. 23. I have thought of trying to vomit in order to lose weight. 24. I think that my thighs are just the right size. 25. I think that my buttocks are too large I eat or drink in secrecy I think that my hips are just the right size. 28. I have extremely high goals * Statistical significance at the p<.05 level. Note. df =2 for all items, n =497. Some totals may not equal n due to missing item responses. Response frequencies below 5 violate the cell size assumptions of 2. NR=Never, Rarely, SO=Sometimes, Often, UA=Usually, Always, F=First Year Respondent, U=Upperclass Respondent.

44 Disordered Eating Behaviors cellence of them, and (d) they have extremely high goals. In connection with previous research, this would indicate that this group is more vulnerable to developing DEBs but is less likely to suffer from Bulimia Nervosa. Researchers report that dissatisfaction with body image is highly related to the development of DEBs (Sarason & Sarason, 1999; Fairburn et al., 1997; Gray & Ford, 1985; Leon, Carroll, Chernyk, & Finn, 1985). Thombs et al. (1996) suggest that body dissatisfaction associated with weight and shape leads females to engage in dieting behaviors, which could be taken to extreme degrees. In terms of body image, participants in this study reported positive perceptions of body size regarding their hips and buttocks. On the other hand, more than half of the respondents in this study reported they almost always feel unsatisfied with the shape of their thighs (as being too large). Previous research strongly relates one s desire to be thinner and having a weight-oriented focus to the development of DEBs and Anorexia Nervosa (Berg, 1988; Kaminski & McNamara, 1996). In addition, researchers suggest that the competitiveness of campus environments magnifies student responses to thinness pressures (Striegel-Moore et al., 1989). It has also been stated that thinness pressures and dieting lead to Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa among females (Sarason & Sarason, 1999). On the Drive for Thinness scale, participants in this study responded with a healthy outlook to two items: (a) they can eat sweets and carbohydrates without feeling nervous, and (b) they do not worry about gaining weight if they gain a pound. The limited focus on diet and weightrelated concerns would indicate less vulnerability toward developing DEBs. Although prevalence rates vary, researchers agree that female college students have an elevated prevalence of Bulimia Nervosa (Sarason & Sarason, 1999; Berg, 1988). In the current study, the Bulimia scale presented the most extreme responses from participants. Comprehensive programming strategies range from distributing basic information through flyers, bulletin board displays, and Web sites to in-depth educational activities about eating disorders for staff members and students. Only 2-8% of the sample reported they regularly engage in each of the following: (a) stuff themselves with food, (b) have gone on binges where they felt they could not stop, (c) think about bingeing, and (d) eat moderately in front of others and stuff themselves when alone, (e) have thought of trying to vomit to lose weight, and (f) eat or drink in secrecy. These responses were much lower than those found in other studies and contradicted previous statistics regarding eating patterns among college students. Their responses did support assumptions made from the Perfectionism and Drive for Thinness scales in connection with previous literature, however. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

45 Kimberly T. Fulcher Steven M. Janosik Participant responses indicated a minimal vulnerability to the development of DEBs, Anorexia Nervosa, and Bulimia Nervosa. Despite an overall healthy outlook, several participants indicated body image concerns and unhealthy behaviors within each item. Student responses suggested that students living in the four residence halls at the institution studied regularly engage in healthy eating behaviors and feel somewhat confident with the shape of their bodies. The Living Environment Previous literature suggested that college pressures, in addition to those of living in a co-ed residence hall, would intensify the development of DEBs (Thombs et al., 1996; Berg, 1988). Other research indicated that singlesex halls would have a stronger effect on this process (Kashubeck et al., 1997). Results of this study do not support research findings related to the reporting of DEBs and the type of oncampus living environment. In fact, we found no significant differences related to living environment (co-ed and single-sex residence halls) based on selected items of the modified version of the EDI-2 (Garner, 1991). Academic Status Previous literature also suggested that female college students are especially in danger of developing DEBs during their first year of college (Browers, 1988; Kashubeck et al., 1997; Striegel-Moore et al., 1989; Thombs et al., 1996). In this study, first year respondents were significantly more likely to report a higher desire to be thinner than were their upperclass counterparts. In relation to academic standing, the lack of significant differences on the other 25 survey items limited the power of this finding. Implications for Practice With respect to the practical application of results from this study, administrators in the residence life department at the institution studied and others who do similar research can use such information to assist in understanding DEBs. Although statistical significance in this study was limited, student response patterns provided details about the thoughts and actions of residential students. Applications for practice fall into three categories: (a) programming strategies, (b) identification measures, and (c) support systems. Comprehensive programming strategies range from distributing basic information through flyers, bulletin board displays, and Web sites to in-depth educational activities about eating disorders for staff members and... because of the secretive and personal nature of eating disorders, it is important that staff employ a variety of identification measures to help recognize students that may have eating disorders. The more that other students and staff become aware of behaviors and attitudes causing reason for concern, the more likely they are to report such incidents appropriately and confidentially. 44 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

46 Disordered Eating Behaviors students. With respect to staff training, student and professional staff members should be informed of the prevalence rates and current research findings related to DEBs. Summarizing the literature and research findings in this study could inform or enhance training sessions in a manner that would not be too overwhelming for student staff members. This strategy could also enhance in-hall programming initiatives (e.g., handouts, bulletin boards, theme weeks, educational goodie bags, s). A specific example from the current study could be the application of student response patterns to items relating to dieting and body image. For these items, the overall sample reported that they generally thought about dieting, were not overwhelmingly focused on nutritional components of food (i.e., carbohydrates and sweets), and generally varied in satisfaction levels with specific body parts. Programming related to any of these items could relate to broad, specific eating styles and exercises students could employ to apply a healthy approach to meeting their body image and health-related needs. A wide variety of opportunities exist for applying the current study to programmatic efforts within the residence halls. Interest groups on wellness, nutrition, fitness and exercise, and life balance could incorporate these data into the program content. Second, because of the secretive and personal nature of eating disorders, it is important that staff employ a variety of identification measures to help recognize students that may have eating disorders. The more that other students and staff become aware of behaviors and attitudes causing reason for concern, the more likely they are to report such incidents appropriately and confidentially. Staff members In this study, women reported an overall healthy outlook on their diet, body image, and behaviors, with few students indicating problems in such areas. These results may not be typical, however, and the literature suggests that freshman women may be at high risk for developing disordered eating behaviors. and students should be taught about the wide range of developmental aspects of DEBs and should not be limited to the clinical diagnosis attributes of eating disorders. Related attitudes such as perfectionist tendencies and over concern about specific body parts, for example, are signals that are much easier to observe and act upon. Staff members should also be aware that it may take more time and effort to discover students who may need help in suite-style or apartment-style residence halls where there is a higher degree of privacy. Third, strong support systems, combined with the previous two applications, provide a well-rounded practice for meeting student needs regarding the development of DEBs. Kyrouz & Humphreys (1997) suggest that supportive peers play an important role in self-help groups of all types. Thus, residence life staff members, and supportive peers, may be able to play a major role in the defense V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

47 Kimberly T. Fulcher Steven M. Janosik system of preventing eating disorder development. While the strength of a positive support system was not part of this study, it merits additional study. Conclusion Like all research, this study suffered from some limitations. Small sample size, possible inaccuracies based on the fact that this is selfreport data about a sensitive topic, and lower than desired response rate reduce the confidence we have in the generalizability of these results. Despite such shortcomings, these findings are helpful. In this study, women reported an overall healthy outlook on their diet, body image, and behaviors, with few students indicating problems in such areas. These results may not be typical, however, and the literature suggests that freshman women may be at high risk for developing disordered eating behaviors. Many women begin their college careers in oncampus residence halls. More research, training, and programming are needed if residence life professionals are to deal successfully with this important but often unrecognized health issue. Replicating this study and discussing the results generally with women living in university residence halls is an excellent way to begin a very important conversation about a crucial health issue. 46 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

48 Disordered Eating Behaviors References Berg, K. M. (1988). The prevalence of eating disorders in co-ed versus single-sex residence halls. Journal of College Student Development, 29, Browers, M. (1988). Depressive thought content among female college students with Bulimia. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Etringer, B. D., Altmaier, E. M., & Bowers, W. (1989). An investigation into the cognitive functioning of bulimic women. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, Fairburn, C. G., Welch, S. L., Dol, H. A., Davies, B. A., & O Connor, M. E. (1997). Risk factors for Bulimia Nervosa: A community-based casecontrol study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. A., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2(2), Gray, J. J., & Ford, K. (1985). The incidence of Bulimia in a college sample. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 4(2), Holleran, P. R., Pascale, J., & Fraley, J. (1998). Personality correlates of college age bulimics. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, Kaminski, P. L., & McNamara, K. (1996). A treatment for college women at risk for Bulimia: A controlled evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, Kashubeck, S., Marchand-Martella, N., Neal, C., & Larsen, C. (1997). Sorority membership, campus pressures, and bulimic symptomatology in college women: A preliminary investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 38(1), Kyrouz, E., & Humphreys, K. (1997) A review of research on the effectiveness of self-help mutual aid groups. The International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 2, Leon, G. R., Carroll, K., Chernyk, B., & Finn, S. (1985). Binge eating and associated habit patterns within college student and identified bulimic populations. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 4(1), Martin, M. E. (1993). Prevalence of eating disorders such as Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa among the college population. College Student Affairs Journal, 12, Meyer, D. F., & Russell, R. K. (1998). Caretaking, separation from parents, and the development of eating disorders. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1999). Abnormal psychology: The problem of maladaptive behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Striegel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., Frensch, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). A prospective study of disordered eating among college students. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8(5), Thombs, D. L., Rosenberg, J. M., Mahoney, C. A., & Daniel, E. L. (1996). Weight-loss expectancies, relative weight, and symptoms of Bulimia in young women. Journal of College Student Development, 37(4), Wear, R. W., & Pratz, O. (1987). Test-retest reliability for the Eating Disorder Inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6, V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

49 Religious Expression Among Residents and Resident Assistants in Residence Halls at Public Colleges and Universities: Freedoms and Constraints Christy D. Moran, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Student Affairs Kansas State University Camilla J. Roberts, Ph.D. Assistant Director, Honor & Integrity System Kansas State University James A. Tobin Resident Director Coordinator of Student Leadership Montana State University Linda M. Harvey Residence Director University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada 48 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

50 The authors would like to thank the Office of the University Attorney at Kansas State University for helpful feedback related to the legal issues in this paper. The purpose of this article is to equip housing professionals at public colleges and universities to adequately handle the challenges related to the religious expression of residents and resident assistants living in the residence halls. To that end, case law and other legal principles are discussed to provide guidance related to the freedom of religious expression within residential environments at public institutions. Furthermore, the fear of offending students is addressed in an effort to encourage productive dialogue about religious differences. Religion has played a major role in higher education in the United States since the first colonial colleges were founded (Rudolph, 1990) and has been identified as one of the most important topics of exploration during the self-examination period of adolescence and young adulthood (Sciarra & Gushue, 2003). Nash (2001) believes that the recent revival of student interest in religion and spirituality represents the most vibrant aspect of pluralism on college and university campuses today and that there appears to be a virtually insatiable need for religious exploration in the academy (p. 3). It is not surprising, then, that researchers at the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that today s college students have very high levels of spiritual interest, and many are actively engaged and involved in religion (Astin, Astin, Lindholm, & Bryant, 2005). Student affairs administrators regularly interact with students who rely upon their spiritual and/or religious beliefs to make meaning in the midst of tragedies, to guide their decision-making, and to direct their vocational and career pursuits (Moran, 2003). Unfortunately, many administrators in student affairs seem to fear discussions of spirituality and religion due, in large part, to their uncertainty regarding relevant legal freedoms and constraints (Temkin & Evans, 1998). Clark (2001) found general confusion...the recent revival of student interest in religion and spirituality represents the most vibrant aspect of pluralism on college and university campuses today and...there appears to be a virtually insatiable need for religious exploration in the academy. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

51 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey about the expression of religious beliefs at public higher education institutions. Though several scholars have written about some of the legal challenges in residence halls at public institutions of higher education (e.g., Bird, Mackin, & Schuster, 2006; Chickering, Student affairs administrators regularly interact with students who rely upon their spiritual and/or religious beliefs to make meaning in the midst of tragedies, to guide their decision-making, and to direct their vocational and career pursuits. Unfortunately, many administrators in student affairs seem to fear discussions of spirituality and religion due, in large part, to their uncertainty regarding relevant legal freedoms and constraints. 2006; Kaplin & Lee, 1997; Lowery, 2004), none have provided a thorough discussion of the situations that arise in residence halls that yield questions about legal freedoms and constraints. Furthermore, guidance concerning the religious expression of resident assistants (RAs) has been directed solely to issues related to the legality of holding religious meetings in their residence hall rooms. As professionals who have worked in residence life at public institutions, we were able to identify some of the most common situations faced by housing professionals that raise questions about the legal parameters of student religious expression in the residence halls at such institutions. In this article, those situations are shared along with relevant legal guidelines in order to equip housing professionals at public colleges and universities to respond to challenges related to the religious expression of both residents and RAs. Residence Life Living in the residence halls is an important aspect of the college experience for many students. Campus residence halls represent a potentially powerful venue for integrating students diverse curricular and co-curricular experiences (Marchese, 1994), and much research has investigated the possible benefits of living on campus, including opportunities for interaction with peers, involvement in out-of-class activities, and increased openness to diversity (e.g., Pike, 2002; Thompson, Samiratedu, & Rafter, 1993). Schroeder and Mable (1994) stated that campus residence halls provide a locale for bringing together many of the experiences that lead to gains in student learning and development in that residential living has the potential to challenge and to educate students as they connect their learning experiences to their living realities (p. 1). RAs, as a student subculture, have been a topic of research interest within higher education due to their many responsibilities, including advising students, developing programs, enforcing policies, and leading others in their activities on campus (Upcraft & Gardner, 50 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

52 Religious Expression 1989); they have been described as active promoters of student learning (Barefoot et al., 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). Researchers have investigated many of the characteristics and skills associated with successful RAs, such as academic ability, personality profiles, and leadership experiences (e.g., Hall & Creed, 1979; Jaeger & Caison, 2006; Thomas, 1979; Winston & Fitch, 1993) as well as motivation (Bierman & Carpenter, 1994) and problem solving (Twale & Burrell, 1994), but very little has been written about the freedoms and constraints related to the religious expression of both residents and RAs in residence halls at public colleges and universities. Religion and the Law The First Amendment provisions related to religious expression at public higher education institutions are summed up in two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (Kaplin & Lee, 1997). According to the establishment clause, public higher education cannot support one religion over another; in effect, these institutions must attempt to maintain religious neutrality. The second provision, the free exercise clause, provides for religious expression that is free of governmental influence. By implication, this means that students have the right to freely express their religious identities on public college and university campuses (Kaplin & Lee, 1997). In the context of residential life, the question of how to allow free expression of religious beliefs without establishing a religion is a common one. Administrators must be mindful that the establishment clause does not mean that a public institution is required to prohibit all religious activity on campus or at university-sponsored off-campus events. We have discovered that many administrators in higher education are too cautious about supporting any form of religious expression due to the fact that the separation of church and state doctrine is often mistakenly believed to In the context of residential life, the question of how to allow free expression of religious beliefs without establishing a religion is a common one. Administrators must be mindful that the establishment clause does not mean that a public institution is required to prohibit all religious activity on campus... mean that any type of religious expression on a public college or university campus will, in effect, establish a religion on that particular campus. A challenge exists, therefore, in attempting to balance these two Constitutional provisions within residential environments at public institutions. In making an attempt to find that balance, administrators in higher education must often rely upon existing case law. Bird et al. (2006) stated that most free expression issues have occurred in some form previously and most have been analyzed and ruled upon (p. 24). This existing case law provides precedent to guide the decision-making process. It is im- V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

53 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey perative, then, that housing professionals at public colleges and universities are aware of the existing case law that relates to the religious expression of their students. Religious Expression in Residence Hall Rooms To what extent do residents have freedom in regards to expressing their religious beliefs through room decorations and in-room religious activities? Residence hall rooms are deemed nonpublic forums (Bird et al., 2006) and thus are considered to be the private domains of the residents who live therein. In most cases, residents who share a room in a residence hall are able to come to agreement about how each will express various values and beliefs in these private domains such that conflict does not occur. Because residence hall rooms are nonpublic forums, the residents therein may determine how to decorate their rooms as long as the decorations do not violate hall policies related to safety and security. Unless their decorations violate the hall policies, residents must be allowed to display religious flyers and symbols if they so choose. If a potentially harmful item is utilized in religious activities (e.g., candles), accommodations for the use of that item need to be made (e.g., designating a specific location and time in the residence hall for this type of practice). In this situation, the rationale behind not permitting candles in the individual residence hall rooms must be based on safety and security concerns and not on the religious reasons for their use. Residents may also determine the activities in which they will engage within their residence hall rooms, as long as those activi- Should a particular resident desire to hold a weekly discussion of a religious text in her room, she has the right to do so. One of the most common challenges concerns that of students reports of being offended by roommates expressions of religious beliefs. An effort should be made by professionals in housing to accommodate the religious beliefs of both parties rather than silencing the religious expression of either. ties are not policy violations related to illegal behavior, safety, or security (e.g., underage drinking). Should a particular resident desire to hold a weekly discussion of a religious text in her room, she has the right to do so. One of the most common challenges concerns that of students reports of being offended by roommates expressions of religious beliefs. An effort should be made by professionals in housing to accommodate the religious beliefs of both parties rather than silencing the religious expression of either. In some cases, roommate contracts may be developed that determine how the room should be decorated and/or used. A significant challenge emerges when concerns are raised about the rights of RAs in terms of room decorations and activities. Many 52 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

54 Religious Expression administrators feel it is inappropriate for RAs to express their religion in those ways, because residents who hold different religious perspectives may view those RAs as unapproachable. Though no case law currently exists where this issue is concerned, a recent occurrence at one public university highlights the sentiment that RAs should be afforded the same freedoms as other residents in this regard. An RA at a University of Wisconsin system institution was told that he was not permitted to host any religious activities in his room. As a result of the RA filing a complaint, the University of Wisconsin system reconsidered its position. According to Bird et al. (2006), RAs may participate in, organize, and lead any meetings or activities within their rooms, floors, or residence halls to the same extent as other students (p. 119). However, they may not influence, pressure, or coerce student residents to participate in such activities. Religious Expression in Lounges and Lobbies Numerous situations have arisen in which residence hall staff members have walked into residence halls to find groups of students gathered in lounges or lobbies in order to express their religious beliefs through the study and discussion of a religious text. At other times, staff members have witnessed groups of students viewing religious programs on television or watching religious-based videos, and some have even happened upon groups of students singing their favorite religious songs in these locations. What are the freedoms and constraints related to religious expression in these common areas within the residence halls? According to Black (1999), a limited public forum is an area voluntarily created by a governmental entity for expressive activity with few restrictions upon its use; none of the restrictions should be based upon the content of the message being delivered. The common areas of residence halls, such as lounges and lobbies, are typically available for use by any resident, group of residents, or guests of residents of that particular residence hall. In Widmar v. Vincent (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the university s exclusionary policy, which did not allow a registered student group to use a generally open forum to engage in religious worship and discussion, violated the principle that a state regulation of speech should be content-neutral. In such limited public forums within residence halls, universities cannot regulate based on content. The Supreme Court has clearly permitted state-operated colleges to give equal access to groups even though there is a religious or spiritual purpose to the meeting as long as the policies in allowing campus spaces are neutral as to religion (Clark, 2001, p. 43). Residents who do not wish to participate in such gatherings are free to leave those common areas without experiencing adverse consequences for doing so; in effect, residents are not captive audiences (Black, 1999) in those residential areas. Administrators do have the authority to set reasonable restrictions based on time, place, or manner (Kaplin & Lee, 1997). This means that administrators may set guidelines as to the time frames in which residents are restricted from meeting as groups (e.g., scheduled quiet hours), may designate certain common areas to be set aside for studying for classes only (e.g., study rooms), and/or may establish a policy for reserving such spaces. In the case of the latter, V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

55 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey administrators must adhere to the reservation process consistently, without discriminating based on the content of discussion or on the nature of the group (e.g., religious). Oftentimes, non-residents affiliated with off-campus religious organizations wish to utilize residential lounges and lobbies in an effort to recruit students to their particular organization and/or to share their religious beliefs with those students. Most residential systems do not allow non-residents to participate in the residence halls without a resident sponsor who will be present at the specific activity that is planned; usually, the rationale for this policy relates to concerns with safety and security. If non-residents are with residents who act as sponsors for their particular activity, however, the freedoms of religious expression mentioned above are relevant. Once again, policies such as those related to non-residents use of lounges and lobbies must be applied consistently, without regard to the content of the activities and/or to the message being promoted. Door-to-Door Invitations and Flyer Distribution Having determined that residence hall rooms are nonpublic forums and that most common areas such as lounges and lobbies are limited public forums, the question often arises concerning religious expression in the actual hallways of the residence halls. Are residents allowed to go door-to-door, inviting other students to various religious functions and/or distributing flyers about such functions? Kaplin and Lee (1997) stated that non-commercial canvassing involves any attempt to influence student opinion, gain support, or promote a particular cause or interest (p. 499). Some case law, presented below, sheds light on issues related to this form of canvassing. In Brush v. Pennsylvania State University (1980), students at Penn State challenged university restrictions on canvassing in the residence halls. The regulations permitted canvassing by registered individuals in the living areas of a residence hall if the residents of that building had voted in favor of open canvassing. A majority vote to ban canvassing, however, precluded access to living areas by canvassers unless a resident invited them in advance. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld these regulations due to the fact that canvassers still had the opportunity to reach hall residents in alternative locations (e.g., lounges and lobbies) within the residence halls. Similarly, in Chapman v. Thomas (1984), a federal appellate court ruled that North Carolina State University could prohibit a student from doorto-door canvassing to publicize campus Bible study meetings. The Court determined that the hallways in the residence halls were nonpublic forums to which the university could prohibit or selectively regulate access (Chapman v. Thomas, 743 F2.d 1056 [4th Cir. 1984]). Such regulations must be applied neutrally and uniformly. Kaplin and Lee (1997) stated that given the strong institutional interests in security and in preserving conditions appropriate for study, it is likely that narrowly drawn no-canvassing rules limited to living areas of dormitories and other similar spaces would be constitutional even without approval by student vote. (p. 499) No-canvassing rules imposed on student living areas with separate living units (e.g., 54 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

56 Religious Expression apartment communities), however, may be unconstitutional. The aforementioned cases establish guidelines for determining appropriate policies regarding door-to-door invitations and the distribution of flyers (e.g., solicitation) in the residence hall living areas. When questions arise concerning non-commercial canvassing, it is important to remember that, according to Bird et al. (2006), residence life staff may not approve or prohibit solicitation based on whether they agree or disagree with the content ideologically. The fact that the flyer may hurt someone s feelings or anger a person passing by cannot be a determining factor in the application of the campus solicitation policy. (p. 75) Moreover, consistency in policy enforcement is critical. If students are denied the opportunity to go door-to-door to distribute flyers about a religious event, then the same restriction needs to be placed upon students going door-to-door distributing other types of flyers. This means that door-to-door invitations to RA-sponsored events may also need to be restricted in order to achieve consistency in policy enforcement. Religious Expression on Room Doors, White Boards, and Hallway Bulletin Boards Many residents enjoy having the opportunity to decorate the outside of their room doors in such a way as to demonstrate their uniqueness and individuality. Questions often surface when such decorations, which are visible to all who walk through that hallway, are perceived as offensive by others on the floor. Similarly, when religious messages are written on white boards and/or on hallway bulletin boards that have been designated for discussion purposes, many administrators become concerned about legal issues. According to Bird et al. (2006), institutions can prohibit door hangings on residence hall room doors if there is a compelling state interest for doing so, such as prohibiting the Most residential systems do not allow non-residents to participate in the residence halls without a resident sponsor who will be present at the specific activity that is planned; usually, the rationale for this policy relates to concerns with safety and security. If nonresidents are with residents who act as sponsors for their particular activity, however, the freedoms of religious expression...are relevant. hanging of any material on the outside of room doors to avoid such materials being set on fire (p. 104). Outside of those situations, as long as residents are allowed to hang decorations on their doors, decorations of a religious nature should not be excluded. Similarly, messages written on white boards and/or hallway bulletin boards that have been designated as discussion boards cannot be regulated simply on the V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

57 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey basis of religious content. Only if falling within the unprotected category (e.g., sexual or racial harassment, obscenity, fighting words, incitement of imminent lawless action, true threat, or defamation) should such written speech be regulated (Kaplin & Lee, 1997). If students are denied the opportunity to go door-to-door to distribute flyers about a religious event, then the same restriction needs to be placed upon students going door-to-door distributing other types of flyers. The Religious Expression of RAs Many of the challenges facing housing professionals concern the religious expression of RAs. For instance, should housing professionals hire RAs who are actively involved in campus religious organizations if they have reason to believe that those students might want to use their positions to proselytize to other residents? Moreover, to what extent should RAs religious beliefs be accommodated when scheduling staff meetings and other work responsibilities (e.g., on-call duty nights)? Discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, by 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981, and by Executive Order So, by choosing not to hire a potential RA due to her or his religious affiliation and/or involvement, administrators could be perceived as discriminating based on religion. It is important to note that RAs must be taught the importance of expressing their religious identity as a reflection of their own personal values and beliefs and not as a spokesperson for and/or a representative of their college or university, thus being perceived as engaging in state action (Kaplin & Lee, 1997, p. 123) on behalf of the university in which each is enrolled. Although RAs live in the halls as residents, they also maintain employment as student leaders in those halls. Therefore, they should not coerce others into participating in religious activities, and they must be cautious that they do not abuse the power that they hold in that regard. So, if they want to share their religious beliefs with residents on their floor, they must not do so while engaged in an RArelated duty. In scheduling work hours, employers and colleges should attempt to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of employees and students (Clark, 2001, p. 43). This might mean making the effort to schedule RA staff meetings at times when most of the RAs are least likely to be engaged in religious activities or releasing an RA from a hall responsibility that falls on a holy day in accordance with her/his religious beliefs. Bird et al. (2006) encourage administrators to examine campus policies related to student employment and to clarify employment expectations that may invite confusion or controversy. If each RA will be expected to be on hall duty one Sunday a month, for instance, RAs should be notified of that prior to accepting their positions in the residence halls. That way, should 56 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

58 Religious Expression their religious practice not allow work on Sundays, they may choose not to accept the RA position. Discussion and Recommendations In reviewing the case law and legal principles presented earlier, administrators in residence life should note that a significant amount of freedom exists regarding student religious expression in the residence halls. Bird et al. (2006) stated Everyone s attitudes, beliefs, and values are different. Our ability to maintain, have challenged, or even change what we believe, and the opportunity to share those beliefs freely with others is a right established by our Constitution. It is a right that colleges and universities should aggressively preserve for generations to come. (p. 3) Unfortunately, tolerance and respect for diverse opinions do not always stretch far enough to include an approved and protected place for religious expression on campus (Hulett, 2004). Much discourse and dialogue in residence life specifically, and in student affairs in general, revolves around a fear of offending others who espouse different religious beliefs. This fear may, in effect, thwart religious expression at public colleges and universities. Resisting the Temptation to Avoid Giving Offense Many residence life staff might argue that students may become offended by religious beliefs that are expressed that are different than their own. This is not a legitimate reason to silence religious expression. Offensive speech is fully protected speech (Barron & Dienes, 2004). In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973), the Supreme Court overturned the suspension of a student due to indecent conduct or speech (i.e., a cartoon in the newspaper). The Court determined that protecting the First Amendment served a greater interest than protecting those offended. Simply being upset, or offended, is not the same as disruption to a campus environment (Bird et al., 2006). We need to resist succumbing to the temptation to avoid giving offense (Nash, 2001, p. 199). Students need to learn to live and to work with those with whom they have significant disagreements regarding the role of faith (Subbiondo, 2006) without becoming offended by the existence of those differences. Nash (2001) cited Kazanjian, Jr. s essay Beyond Tolerance: From Mono-Religious Life at Wellesley College in Education as Transformation (Kazanjian & Laurence, 2000) as a source that provides suggestions about how to resist the temptation to avoid giving offense when discussing controversial issues. Rather than focusing on the concern that students might be offended by others religious beliefs, housing professionals can be active partners in the learning experiences of students when they are faced with religious beliefs that are contrary to their own. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

59 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey Engaging in Moral Conversations Rather than focusing on the concern that students might be offended by others religious beliefs, housing professionals can be active partners in the learning experiences of students when they are faced with religious beliefs that are contrary to their own. Nash (2001) suggested that professionals in higher education should teach students to engage in moral conversations rather than in adversarial discourse (p. 172). He provided six principles for engaging in such conversations, including a focus on the importance of acknowledging that all views in moral conversation deserve at least an initial respect and that the main purpose of such conversations should be to find the truth in what we oppose and the error in what we espouse prior to presuming to acknowledge the truth in what we espouse and the error in what we oppose (p. 178). According to Kohlberg (1976), the ability to see others points of view is necessary to achieve more advanced levels of moral reasoning. Because social interaction with peers is especially influential in cognitive development (Piaget, 1952), the teachable moments that religious expression in the residence halls provides are crucial in our attempts to create effective living-learning environments. Recommendations for Practice Given the importance of the legal guidelines discussed in this paper, we encourage residence life staff to be proactive about incorporating this information into their training and professional development sessions. Case studies could be utilized to highlight the specific legal situations discussed earlier, and small groups of staff could work to determine Due to their involvement with many residents in residence halls, campus ministers could be invited to attend training sessions along with the residents who are involved in their campus religious organizations in order to ensure that they, too, understand legal parameters. the appropriate response(s) to each. Moreover, legal counsel could be invited to attend these sessions in order to provide further guidance and clarification about complex scenarios. Residence life staff members representing at least two institutions are recognizing the need for discussions about appropriate forms of religious expression among RAs in the residence halls. For instance, due to challenges related to the intersection of the spirituallyfocused priorities and secular job responsibilities among some of their RAs, the University of Northern Iowa recently instituted training sessions focused on equipping RAs to be approachable in order to effectively serve all of their residents (Martin, 2007). The culmination of the training involves the distribution of Talk to Me! bookmarks that each RA is directed to distribute to all residents for whom s/he has responsibility in order to open up the channels of communication with all of them, including those who may hold different values than the RA. Similarly, at Kansas State University, optional training sessions are held for in- 58 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

60 Religious Expression terested RAs. After discussing challenging case studies, each RA is provided with a notepad on which are outlined six critical guidelines for RAs: Intentionally build relationships, listen even if I don t agree, understand my influence, be an effective referral agent, consider perspectives other than my own, and strive to create a welcoming community for all people (Hess, Jaworski, & Van Dyke, 2007). Though focused more on communication challenges than on legal guidelines, such initiatives are noteworthy. We also suggest that residential staff attempt to educate all residents about these legal guidelines. Due to their involvement with many residents in residence halls, campus ministers could be invited to attend training sessions along with the residents who are involved in their campus religious organizations in order to ensure that they, too, understand legal parameters. Perhaps this critical information could also be shared in residential life handbooks that are distributed to residents during check-in. In conclusion, Bird et al. (2006) aptly stated that the First Amendment protects all voices, even those that someone may find irresponsible, defiant, or oppressive. For every person who finds a voice irresponsible, defiant, or oppressive, another will find it a rousing example of free speech (p. 16). Residence halls at public colleges and universities are ideal settings for discussion about religious differences among residents and RAs. Much student learning and development can occur as we allow students to freely express their religious beliefs within these residential environments. References Astin, A. W., Astin, A. W., Lindholm, J. A., & Bryant, A. N. (2005). The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college students search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Barefoot, B. O., Gardner, J. N., Cutright, M., Morris, L. V., Schroeder, C. C., Schwartz, S. W., et al. (2005). Achieving and sustaining institutional excellence for the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barron, J., & Dienes, C. T. (2004). First Amendment law in a nutshell (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Bierman, S. E., & Carpenter, D. S. (1994). An analysis of resident assistant work motivation. Journal of College Student Development, 35, Bird, L. E., Mackin, M. B., & Schuster, S. K. (Eds.). (2006). The First Amendment on campus: A handbook for college and university administrators. Washington, DC: NASPA. Black, H. G. (1999). Black s law dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Brush v. Pennsylvania State University, 414 A.2d 48 (Pa. 1980). Chapman v. Thomas, 743 F.2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1984). Chickering, A. W. (2006). Policy issues: Legislative and institutional. In A. W. Chickering, J. C. Dalton, & L. Stamm (Eds.), Encouraging authenticity & spirituality in higher education (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, R. T. (2001). The law and spirituality: How the law supports and limits expression of spirituality on the college campus. In M. A. Jablonski (Ed.), New Directions for Student Services (No. 95, pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Executive Order Retrieved September 1, 2007, from ofccp/eo11246.htm V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

61 Christy D. Moran Camilla J. Roberts James A. Tobin Linda M. Harvey Hall, M., & Creed, W. (1979). The use of the CPI in the evaluation and selection of resident assistants. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 9, Hess, D., Jaworski, B., & Van Dyke, K. (2007). Integrating faith and job responsibilities: How K-State housing and dining is addressing this issue. Presentation given at the Kansas Student Affairs Conference, Manhattan, KS. Hulett, L. S. (2004). Being religious at Knox College: Attitudes toward religion, Christian expression, and conservative values on campus. Religion & Education, 31(2), Jaeger, A. J., & Caison, A. L. (2006). Rethinking criteria for training and selection: An inquiry into the emotional intelligence of resident assistants. NASPA Journal, 43, Article 8. naspa.org/naspajournal/vol43/iss1/art8 Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1997). A legal guide for student affairs professionals: Adapted from the Law of Higher Education (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kazanjian, V. H., & Laurence, P. L. (Eds.). (2000). Education as transformation: Religious pluralism, spirituality, and a new vision for higher education in America. New York: Peter Lang. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp ). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lowery, J. W. (2004). What higher education law says about spirituality. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (No. 104, pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marchese, T. J. (1994). Foreword. In C. Schroeder & P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp. xi-xiii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Martin, D. (2007). Personal faith and RA duties: Resolving ostensible conflicts. Presentation given at the ACUHO-I Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. Moran, C. D. (2003). Spirituality and religion through the eyes of the hidden educators. Religion & Education, 30(1), Nash, R. J. (2001). Religious pluralism in the academy: Opening the dialogue. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 60 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

62 Religious Expression Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973). Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Pike, G. R. (2002). The differential effects of onand off-campus living arrangements on students openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 39, Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Schroeder, C. C., & Mable, P. (1994). Residence halls and the college experience: Past and present. In C. Schroeder & P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sciarra, D. T., & Gushue, G. T. (2003). Race and religion: White racial identity and religious orientation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(4), Subbiondo, J. L. (2006). Integrating religion and spirituality in higher education: Meeting the global challenge of the 21st century. Religion & Education, 33(2), Temkin, L., & Evans, N. J. (1998). Religion on campus: Suggestions for cooperation between student affairs and campus-based religious organizations. NASPA Journal, 36(1), Thomas, R. W. (1979). Personality variables and residence hall counselor effectiveness. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 9(2), Thompson, J., Samiratedu, V., & Rafter, J. (1993). The effects of on-campus residence on first-time college students. NASPA Journal, 31, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. sec (1964). Twale, D. J., & Burrell, L. F. (1994). Resident assistants on Black and White campuses assess resident student problems. Journal of College Student Development, 35(1), Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). Winston, R. B., Jr., & Fitch, R. T. (1993). Paraprofessional staffing. In R. B. Winston, Jr., S. Anchors, & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

63 Where You Live Influences Who You Know: Differences in Student Interaction Based on Residence Hall Design Alison Brandon Residence Education Coordinator Longwood University Joan B. Hirt Associate Professor Virginia Tech Tracey Cameron Doctoral Student Virginia Tech University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 62 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

64 Student persistence is positively correlated with student-faculty and student-student interaction. These types of interaction, in turn, can be highly influenced by the physical environment (Lewin, 1936) that incorporates building design (Strange & Banning, 2001), including residence hall building design. Despite theories that building design impacts interactions, there is little research that explores how student interaction is influenced as a result of residence hall building design. The purpose of this study was to understand how residence hall spaces that differ by architectural style (traditional versus suite-style halls) impact college student interactions. Results revealed differences by building style in the number of interactions students had, where those interactions took place, as well as some surprising findings about the types of interactions that students have, regardless of building design. Student persistence has long been valued by higher education administrators (Glynn, Sauer, & Miller, 2003). An estimated 80% of freshman college students persist through their first year, yet only 55% ultimately complete a degree at an institution of higher learning after 6 years (Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2007). The level of persistence can be attributed to a student s general integration into the institution (both academic and social). Integration is influenced by interaction, both student-faculty and student-student interaction (Tinto, 1975, 1993). When students have the opportunity to interact with faculty and one another, the college experience is enhanced, thus providing deeper learning and development. Interaction creates a depth of understanding that observation cannot replicate (Stimpson, 1994). Learning is not purely a cognitive process but is also social in nature. Therefore, knowledge of any kind is shaped through interaction with others (Moran & Gonyea, 2003). When students have the opportunity to interact with faculty and one another, the college experience is enhanced, thus providing deeper learning and development. Interaction creates a depth of understanding that observation cannot replicate. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

65 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Interaction can be influenced by several factors. For instance, research has linked personality to interactions (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1993). Students have personalities, a certain set of characteristics and experiences they bring to the college setting that may impact the way they interact with others (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1993). That personality may play a part in a student s ability or willingness to initiate an interaction, as well as the ability to respond to an interaction initiated by someone else. Consequently, personality may influence integration into a university (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1976, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1993). In addition to personality, the context in which interaction occurs is important. Interactions can occur in two of the many realms in students lives: the academic and the social realm. In the academic realm, most interaction takes place within classrooms, labs, studios, and other instructional facilities. Indeed studentfaculty interactions have a major impact on a student s decision to persist in college (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1976, 1980). The more frequently students have quality interactions with faculty members, both formally and informally, the more likely they are to persist. The contact between students and faculty can greatly increase students integration into an institution because of the personalized connection that is created when such interaction occurs (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1976, 1980). In addition to student-faculty interactions in the academic setting, students also interact with one another in the academic environment. Peer interaction can serve as a way for students to process what they are learning and to develop cognitively (Whitt, Edison, Pascarel- la, Nora, & Terenzini, 1999). Peer interactions in the academic setting, such as group work in class or peer tutoring, can help students further integrate into their institution. Interaction in the academic setting increases involvement in the learning process which, in turn, promotes development (Whitt et al.,1999). Other interactions that take place on a college campus occur in the social realm. Social interaction is a significant determinant of graduation and student persistence rates (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994). Peer interactions influence student development simply because they happen on a daily basis (Whitt et al., 1999). Life outside the academic classroom setting is considered the real world lab (Kuh, 1995), and a great deal of learning In the academic realm, most interaction takes place within classrooms, labs, studios, and other instructional facilities. Indeed student-faculty interactions have a major impact on a student s decision to persist in college. The more frequently students have quality interactions with faculty members, both formally and informally, the more likely they are to persist. 64 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

66 Interactions by Style of Hall Other interactions that take place on a college campus occur in the social realm. Social interaction is a significant determinant of graduation and student persistence rates. Peer interactions influence student development simply because they happen on a daily basis. occurs outside the formal classroom. Some of this occurs as a result of social interaction between students and other people (Stimpson, 1994). Residence hall facilities are one realm on a college campus in which social interactions occur. Few other environments at a university influence the behaviors of college students as much as the residence hall setting (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1982). Students spend around 70% of their time in their living environment (Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). Residence halls provide unique opportunities because they give college students the occasion to meet and interact with other people from all types of backgrounds (Heilweil, 1973). For many students, residence halls constitute the center of their social world (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1984). The design of a residence hall can influence how students interact within that space (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). For example, a residence hall that has multiple entrances can result in fewer interactions among students. Presumably, students use the closest exit or entrance to their room, leading them to pass by fewer student room doors. Alternatively, a hall with multiple social gathering spaces might encourage students to interact more with one another than would one that has few common areas. Environment, defined as either built or perceived elements that might affect how a person is able to act or react in a situation, influences the way people interact with one another (Lewin, 1936). Winston Churchill said, We shape our buildings and then they shape us (Strange & Banning, 2001, p.12). Architectural determinism suggests that the physical environment has a direct impact on the behavior that occurs within that environment. The design of a built environment (i.e., any physical structure on a college campus) can have a causal effect on how people move within that environment (Ellen, 1982). For example, elements such as stair or wall placement, signage, lighting, floor material, and other factors all contribute to architectural determinism (Strange & Banning, 2001). Simple observation confirms that behaviors such as traffic patterns are influenced by the design of a residence hall. In most cases, behavior is not completely dictated by architecture; however, it is fairly obvious when a person behaves in a way that contradicts architectural design, like entering a building through a door clearly marked as an exit only for that facility (Strange & Banning, 2001). In summary, many studies have examined student interaction (Celce-Murcia, 1989; Moran & Gonyea, 2003; Stimpson, 1994; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1976, 1980; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1999; Tinto, 1975, 1993; Whitt et al., 1999), and much has been written about residence halls and their impact on student development (El-Koumy, 1997; Kuh, Douglas, V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

67 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Lund, Ramin, & Gyurnek, 1994; Pascarella et al., 1994; Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). However, limited research has been done on the issue of residence hall design, and no research has been conducted on the intersection between student interaction and residence hall design. This study added to the current body of knowledge because it examined student interaction within the residence hall setting and how interaction may be impacted by residence hall design. Methodology The purpose of this study was to examine the interactions that took place among residents in traditional and suite-style residence halls. Traditional halls were defined as those with double-loaded corridors where 40 or more residents share a common bathroom. Suite-style residence halls were defined as those where four to six bedrooms (housing no more than six students) open onto a small common space and only the students residing in those bedrooms share a bathroom. For the purposes of this study, an interaction was defined as face-to-face contact between two or more individuals that lasted more than 5 minutes and that went beyond a simple greeting. We chose to look at face-to-face (as opposed to online) interactions because the literature suggests that in-person contacts are the types of interactions that increase integration into an institution and, therefore, persistence. Also, we were interested in how the design of the building impacts interactions. There is no literature that suggests that the design of a building impacts online interactions between students, so studying face-to-face interactions seemed most appropriate for this particular study. Sample There were two samples employed in the study. The first included six residence halls on the campus of a large public institution in the mid- Atlantic region. The Web site of the residence life office on campus was used to identify all traditional and suite-style halls. The number of bed spaces and the gender composition in each hall were examined to select facilities that housed like numbers of residents and representative numbers of men and women. Three residence halls of each style (traditional and suite) were selected for the study through this process. The second sample included students residing in each of these six selected residence halls. Participants had to have been a resident of their respective building for at least 4 weeks at the time of data collection. We assumed that those who had lived in the building floor at least 4 weeks had resided there long enough to know what spaces were available for their use and how they did or did not use those spaces. In all, 62 residents participated in the study (32 from traditional halls, 30 from suite-style halls). The participants were relatively balanced in terms of gender (56% female, 44% male). In terms of race, 89% were Caucasian while the remainder were African American, Asian American, or Hispanic. These numbers were generally representative of the racial composition of the residential population on the study campus, though women were somewhat overrepresented in the sample. Data were collected through six individual focus groups. Flyers distributed throughout the selected residence halls served as a means to recruit study participants. Those who respond- 66 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

68 Interactions by Style of Hall ed were then screened. Participants were asked to identify which residence hall they lived in, how long they had lived there, and their race and gender. The series of questions were asked to determine whether participants had lived in their building for at least 4 weeks. Likewise, it was important to recruit participants who represented the residential population in terms of race and gender. This recruiting/screening process made it possible to accomplish those design goals. Procedure Participants in each focus group all resided in the same residence hall. Three written instruments were used during each focus group. The first instrument was composed of demographic questions. The second instrument consisted of a small floor plan for the participants residence hall and an accompanying chart with instructions. Each small floor plan showed one floor of the respective residence hall in addition to any other critical spaces in the building (i.e., study lounges, kitchens, lobby, bathrooms, meeting rooms). Participants were asked to number each of their interactions during the 4 days immediately preceding data collection in the location on the floor plan where that interaction took place and then to explain that interaction in the chart. The chart had five columns. The first column indicated the number assigned to the interaction. The second asked participants to describe what they were doing during that interaction. In the third column, participants were prompted to explain who was involved in the interaction (e.g., friend, roommate, classmate, etc.). The fourth column had participants report how long the interaction lasted. Respondents were reminded to identify only those interactions that lasted more than 5 minutes and that were more important than a simple greeting. The fifth column was provided to allow participants to share any additional information they wished to offer about that particular interaction. Architectural determinism suggests that the physical environment has a direct impact on the behavior that occurs within that environment. The design of a built environment (i.e., any physical structure on a college campus) can have a causal effect on how people move within that environment. The third instrument was a large-scale floor plan of the informants building. Participants were asked to transcribe the interactions indicated on their individual floor plan and chart these onto the larger master floor plans. Once all focus group participants marked their interactions on the master floor plan, they were prompted to discuss the patterns they observed about where interactions in their building took place and what types of interactions they had. These conversations were digitally recorded, and the audio tapes were instrumental in the analysis of data. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

69 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Findings Data were analyzed using both the tapes of the focus groups and the small and large floor plans and charts marked by each of the focus group participants. Interactions were assigned to groups by type (General Conversation/Activity, Entertainment, Academic, Formal Conversation/Activity, Eating). The frequencies with which each type of activity occurred in each of several locations (e.g., hallway, bathroom, kitchen, study lounge, bedroom) were calculated. The findings revealed certain patterns that involved the number of interactions that occurred, where those interactions took place, and the types of interactions that students had with one another. Frequency of Interactions The first key finding was that residents of traditional halls interact with others more often on a daily basis than do their counterparts in suitestyle halls. A total of 334 interactions were reported by traditional residence hall participants (see Table 1), an average of 10.4 interactions per participant over the 4-day data collection period. This is in comparison to a total of 256 interactions reported by suite-style participants over the same time frame. On average, each suite-style participant reported a total of 8.5 interactions, or 23% fewer interactions per participant than the traditional group. Participants themselves acknowledged that the design of suite-style halls limited the extent of interactions with others. As one suite-style focus group member said, It s weird that we know a lot less people on our hall than most other buildings on campus. Another suite participant commented, I had a friend who lived in [a traditional hall] last year and when I As one suite-style focus group member said, It s weird that we know a lot less people on our hall than most other buildings on campus. Another suite participant commented, I had a friend who lived in [a traditional hall] last year and when I was on her hall it felt like a dorm and when I came back here it felt like a hotel. This feeling could directly be attributed to the design and layout differences between suite-style and traditional buildings. was on her hall it felt like a dorm and when I came back here it felt like a hotel. This feeling could directly be attributed to the design and layout differences between suite-style and traditional buildings. Another suite participant reflected on his experience saying I found that just the way the suites are designed it s really hard to get to know people and to meet new people. We lived in [a traditional hall] the first year and we re not exactly the most social people in the world but it was kind of easy if you did want to get to know somebody because I mean your door would be open you d be passing down the hall to do whatever and you d just pop in and 68 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

70 Interactions by Style of Hall see what they re doing and with this setup you ve got the suite doors open but the other rooms are out of line of sight. And even if people are in there interacting, it s kind of a group of people that you feel are a group of friends and you feel like you re intruding. This sentiment was confirmed by another suite resident: It s kind of awkward walking into someone s suite if you don t know them. You wouldn t just walk into your neighbor s house without knowing them. Yet another observed that If you re gonna talk to someone you have to make it a point to talk to them. I lived in [a traditional hall] last year and it s like if you re passing by someone s door you d say oh hello and start a conversation. It was really easy because it was their room and you d be passing by. But here you have to go in, knock, and say, hello, this is what I have to say to you. One young man illustrated his frustration with the suite-style design: I was walking past a suite and saw someone watching hockey in his suite so I went in and said, I see you re watching hockey, do you play? and he looked at me like I was crazy. These design-related experiences seem to impact the way residents reach out to others they have not met before. It appears that residents of suite-style buildings live primarily in either their bedroom or common suite areas. This could potentially render it difficult to initiate interactions beyond their own suite. One participant noted that I think at the beginning of the year we were more willing to walk around into other suites and, I guess, try to make new friends in other suites and on other floors and stuff. But now that school s kind of in full swing and we ve got all this work, we re kind of more to ourselves. We ve already created those cliques and created those friendships. Whatever the explanation, residents in traditional halls have far more interactions than their suite-style counterparts. Table 1 Differences in Interactions by Type in Traditional and Suite-Style Halls (N=590) Type Traditional (n=334) *Suite (n=256) % % Type general conversation/activity entertainment academic 10 8 formal conversation/activity 5 7 eating 4 5 * May not total 100% due to rounding. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

71 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Location of Interactions The most compelling variation between the kinds of interactions in traditional and suitestyle residence halls is where they take place, the second key finding of this study (see Table 2). The most used spaces in traditional buildings are resident rooms. One participant stated that my room is hoppin and there s a lot going on in the RA rooms. Another person noted the frequency of interaction in her room by saying, Think of all the times people come to my door to talk. Speaking about the culture on the floor, one resident said that everyone s door is always open and everyone knows everyone else. Having multiple room doors open onto a hallway as well as residents who are familiar with one another seems to lead to a higher chance of interactions in resident rooms. One reason why resident rooms may be the most used in terms of interactions in traditional halls is that their living space is a single room the bedroom. Those in suite-style halls have not only their bedrooms but the common area and the bathroom in which interactions can occur. Their rooms may be where students in traditional halls feel the most at home, can take the most ownership of, and therefore feel the most comfortable in. Additionally, one traditional residence hall resident reported spending most of his time between my room and the lounge. One participant said, You do lots of stuff where you live, and another said, Most of them happen in and around my room, referring to the fact that many students have interactions in close proximity to their own room. Another participant reported that the middle of the building is where most of stuff happens. By middle of the building, this student was referring to the middle of the hallway that runs the length of each corridor in traditional halls. This could be attributed to the layout of that particular hallway or could be a factor of residents congregating in the middle of the hallway out of convenience for those who live on either end of the hallway. In suite-style halls the majority of interactions are split between resident bedrooms and the common areas within the suite (a living area and hallway). To students, common spaces seem to be considered part of the living area. Almost half (48%) of interactions take place in resident bedrooms. One participant who studied the chart she developed in the focus group commented on her trends in interactions by noting with some astonishment, they all take place in my room or right around it for the most part. Another said, A lot of mine is [sic] in someone else s room. These comments point to the fact that resident bedrooms are the primary interactivity zone in a suite-style residence hall. Next to resident bedrooms, the suite space is where most of the remainder of interactions occur (27%). One participant questioned her interactions as a whole by saying, Does it matter that none of my interactions happen outside of my suite? Another said, I m always in the suite doing things. Yet another added, Most of mine are somewhere in the suite. She went on to say, I think people tend to cluster in the suites. One person, surprised about her pattern of interactions added that, I was proud of myself for having one down the hall. 70 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

72 Interactions by Style of Hall Lounges in suite-style buildings tend to be used infrequently by residents (5%). One participant noted that Usually whenever I see people in the lounges it s some group who doesn t live here. He went on to say, In the big main lounge, that s usually where the clubs are. He was referring to the fact that student organizations on the campus where the study was conducted can reserve some of the larger study lounges in suite-style residence halls to hold meetings or other activities. The existence of a lounge reservation policy in residence halls may limit the frequency of lounge use by residents of that respective building. The bottom line is that residents of traditional halls interact most often in their rooms, but they make some use of lounges, hallways, and other public spaces in their buildings. For residents of suite-style halls, bedrooms and common areas within the suite are where nearly all (75%) interactions take place, and public spaces infrequently are the site of social interactions. Table 2 Number of Interactions by Location in Traditional and Suite-style Halls (N=590) Location *Traditional (n=334) *Suite (n=256) % % room suite 0 27 hall 5 5 bathroom 4 5 laundry 1 1 elevator 0 1 lounge 10 5 lobby 0 2 Kitchen 1 2 Mail room 0 1 stairs 1 0 front entrance 4 0 vending 3 0 office 3 0 unknown 0 1 * May not total 100% due to rounding. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

73 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Types of Interactions The final important finding of this study related to the types of interactions residents in the two types of facilities have. In this case, the patterns between those in traditional and suite-style halls are similar (see Table 1). Residents of traditional buildings most often (58%) have interactions that are considered General in nature. This category includes interactions where residents talked about the events in their lives, caught up with one another at the end of a day, or discussed plans for upcoming events. Twenty-three percent of interactions in traditional halls involve Entertainment activities like playing video games or watching TV or movies. Some participants commented The most used spaces in traditional buildings are resident rooms. One participant stated that my room is hoppin and there s a lot going on in the RA rooms. Another person noted the frequency of interaction in her room by saying, Think of all the times people come to my door to talk. Speaking about the culture on the floor, one resident said that everyone s door is always open and everyone knows everyone else. that I watched that show I Love New York. One participant asked another, What was that cartoon we were watching? It is clear that students often enjoy watching TV or movies with other people. They may choose to interact with one another during Entertainment situations if they share a favorite television show, video game, or genre of movies or simply enjoy spending time with one another. The remaining 19% of interactions are either Academic (e.g., doing homework, study groups), Formal (e.g., attending hall programs) or Eating (e.g., preparing food, sharing a meal or snack) activities. These findings parallel the results from residents of suite-style residence halls: The majority of interactions are General in nature (57%). These interactions include activities like hanging out or talking with a suitemate. When residents of suite-style halls are not having General Conversations or Activities, they interact in Entertainment situations (22%). One participant asked another during a focus group, We were playing Madden, weren t we? Another asked, We watched TV didn t we? Between these two interaction types (General and Entertainment), the majority of interactions that take place in suite-style buildings are social in nature. Only a handful of interactions in suite-style spaces include Academic (8%), Formal (7%), or Eating (5%) activities. What is salient here is not what types of interactions are taking place in the two types of facilities, but rather what types of activities are not taking place in these buildings. In particular, the lack of academic interactions was striking. Respondents were asked to identify all their interactions over a 4-day period including 72 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

74 Interactions by Style of Hall a weekend and some weekdays. Yet very few interactions (10% and 8% for traditional and suite-style halls, respectively) were academic in nature. There are several possible explanations for this pattern. For example, it could be that studying among those residents who participated in the research was conducted independently and not with others. Alternatively, the data were collected in early February, 3 to 4 weeks after the start of the semester. Perhaps the academic workload was fairly light and did not consume a lot of time for residents during the course of data collection. It is also possible, however, that residents simply do not engage in interactions of an academic nature in residence halls. These findings have important inferences. Discussion The results from this study suggest that traditional residence halls facilitate more interaction than suite-style halls. While this conclusion is consistent with previous research and may not be surprising to experienced administrators, it presents a conundrum for housing professionals attempting to address both student developmental needs and wants. Students prefer the privacy and social amenities of suite-style halls, but the traditional living environment tends to foster a greater sense of community. Hybrid residential communities are one solution to the problem. In such facilities, 10 or 12 bedrooms surround a common living, dining, and kitchen area, and residents share a bathroom. The result is a community that is small enough for residents to know all the others in the suite but large enough to encourage interactions among a larger group of residents than found in conventional suite-style buildings. What is salient here is not what types of interactions are taking place in the two types of facilities, but rather what types of activities are not taking place in these buildings. In particular, the lack of academic interactions was striking. Respondents were asked to identify all their interactions over a 4-day period including a weekend and some weekdays. Yet very few interactions (10% and 8% for traditional and suitestyle halls, respectively) were academic in nature. In essence, the hybrid model is designed to promote the type, number, and variety of interactions that occur in a traditional hall while providing the personal space afforded students in a suite-style facility. It combines the positive attributes of both styles of living. The hybrid model gives students what they want (intimacy and privacy) while also increasing the number of people with whom they interact. The model is becoming a popular design for institutions building new facilities. However, if the construction of hybrid residential communities is not a viable solution, the creation of policies and the implementation of programs that promote student interaction are essential. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

75 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron First, students who live in suite-style residence halls had fewer interactions (n=256) overall than did students who reside in traditional halls (n=334). This finding suggests that students in traditional residence halls have an easier time meeting other people than do their suite-style counterparts. If students in suite-style halls mostly interact within their suite area, practitioners should work to create more opportunities, formal or informal, where residents could interact with others outside the suite. For example, programs like trick-or-treating at Halloween or scavenger hunts might encourage inter-suite interactions. Some solutions may involve facility design. For example, in the suite-style buildings on the campus where the study was conducted, the doors from the common area of the suites to the hallway are staggered. That is, the door into a suite on one side of the hallway is not directly opposite the door into a suite on the other side of the hall. This means that even when suite doors on either side of the hall are open, residents do not look into their neighbors suite. Designing suite-style halls that architecturally facilitate interaction among suites is one way to address the problem. Beyond design issues, however, there are policy and programmatic considerations. With respect to policy, if housing professionals want to place first year students in an environment where the possibility for interaction is the highest, then regulations that limit housing options for first year students to traditional residence hall environments might be advisable. Likewise, if professionals want to encourage more interactions in suite-style halls, that may be most readily accomplished in public areas like TV lounges. On the campus where the study was conducted, nonresident student groups could reserve those lounges for meetings and other events. That may have limited use of the space by residents of the building. While opening housing facilities to such groups may be designed to maximize use of space on campus (typically a limited resource), in this instance that goal may directly conflict with the goal of increasing interactions among residents of suite-style halls. Housing profes- Beyond design issues, however, there are policy and programmatic considerations. With respect to policy, if housing professionals want to place first year students in an environment where the possibility for interaction is the highest, then regulations that limit housing options for first year students to traditional residence hall environments might be advisable. sionals would be well served to consider how to balance these competing interests when designing policies about access to space in suitestyle halls. Our second finding revealed a difference in where interactions took place in the two types of halls. Nearly all interactions in suite-style 74 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

76 Interactions by Style of Hall Residence life practitioners should encourage residents of all types of on-campus living facilities to utilize the spaces offered in residence halls beyond rooms and suite areas. This could be done through programming, but ultimately the goal would be to create a culture where students are encouraged to use certain spaces for specific types of activities. halls occurred within the suite, while in traditional halls at least some interactions occurred in common areas of the hall. Residence life practitioners should encourage residents of all types of on-campus living facilities to utilize the spaces offered in residence halls beyond rooms and suite areas. This could be done through programming, but ultimately the goal would be to create a culture where students are encouraged to use certain spaces for specific types of activities. For example, lounges could be utilized to encourage a study hour every weeknight evening. This would support more frequent use of the lounge spaces. In both traditional and suite-style residence halls, cooking programs could be sponsored to teach residents how to cook in order to encourage use of cooking facilities in halls. In addition, contests could be held to decorate the lobby or display artwork by students who live in the hall. Improving the visual appearance of lobby spaces might encourage residents to use those spaces more frequently. Finally, the data reveal that students enjoy getting together to watch television or movies or to play video games. Sponsoring get-togethers in which students watch popular shows together in the TV lounge or gaming nights in which players compete in the lounge might encourage greater use of the common areas in buildings. The bottom line is that campuses are increasingly designing residence halls that offer all types of amenities. In our study, participants did not make great use of those additional facilities, so housing officers would be well advised to determine if residents are availing themselves of those amenities before further investing in them. Our final finding was perhaps the most perplexing. Residence halls have been shown to foster a great deal of social interaction among college students (Heilweil, 1973; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1982; Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). This conclusion was reaffirmed in our study, but it also important to note that there is disparity in the number of social interactions compared to academic interactions. This could be because students study alone. It may also be because students choose to have interactions involving academics outside of their residence hall environment (e.g., in the library or computer lab). Regardless of the reason, programming in the halls should complement student learning in the classroom, and the goals of residence life departments must be aligned with the academic mission of the institution. It appears that the most effective way to achieve academic interaction would be through intentional programming that encourages peer-to-peer academic or formal interaction or V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

77 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Another option to boost academic interaction is a faculty-in-residence/ faculty fellow program. Faculty would work collaboratively with residence life staff and residents in the planning and implementation of hall programming. These types of interactions are essential in providing an additional layer of academic support for students. invites faculty members to actively participate in residence hall settings. To increase the frequency of academic interactions, practitioners could offer academic enrichment programming (i.e., tutoring, study skills workshops), designate space for study groups, offer support services through the creation of an academic resource center, or host common reading discussions in the halls. Another option to boost academic interaction is a faculty-in-residence/faculty fellow program. Faculty would work collaboratively with residence life staff and residents in the planning and implementation of hall programming. These types of interactions are essential in providing an additional layer of academic support for students. Additionally, such opportunities are instrumental in helping to foster meaningful advising/mentoring relationships between faculty and students. If a faculty-in-residence program is not a viable option, faculty or teaching assistants could be invited into the residence halls to host onetime programs or simply to chat informally with students. In keeping with the theme of collaboration between academic and student affairs, policies could be adopted that create opportunities for structured student-faculty interactions in the residence halls. Conducting office hours and holding classes in residential facilities are examples of how this goal could be fostered. While our findings were interesting, they also suggested the need for more research on the intersection between building design and interactions. We examined the types of interactions in both traditional and suite-style residence halls. Because the data were not disaggregated by class standing, it was not clear if there was a difference between the types of interactions first year students had in comparison with upper division students. There could be more research in this area that examines whether lower and upper division students interact differently, or more or less, in suite-style communities as opposed to traditional halls. This study did not examine differences in types of interactions between males and females. A future study might examine how interactions in residence halls differ between men and women. Finally, there are other styles of residence halls at present, and trends in residence hall design may change in the coming years. Future research could repeat this methodology but include participants from other or newer styles of residence halls. It also is important to note the limitations to the study. First, all the participants were students at the same institution. Students at this 76 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

78 Interactions by Style of Hall campus could have differed from students at other colleges or universities in some way that may have influenced the findings. Qualitative techniques were used to collect data. The transferability of findings in qualitative studies should be done with great caution. Additionally, we captured data about interactions over a relatively short period of time, 4 days. It is possible that the limited types or frequencies of interactions are a consequence of the relatively brief period of data collection. Despite these limitations, this was an informative study. Building design has been shown to influence interaction in prior studies (Ellen, 1982; Hamrick et al., 2002; Strange & Banning, 2001), and this study confirmed that finding. Those in traditional halls have many casual interactions simply because they walk by one another s rooms going in and out of the building. In suite-style halls, on the other hand, residents have to work harder if they want to get to know residents outside their immediate suite. Those who want to maximize social and academic developmental opportunities for residents of all types of buildings would be well served to make note of these findings. It would seem that purposeful programming is necessary to promote such development. Likewise, policies that encourage interactions among residents and full use of building facilities might be warranted. When practitioners understand the potential holistic developmental opportunities that could exist in the college student living environment, then they can utilize programming and policy-making efforts to magnify student outcomes through a wider variety of types of interactions. References Case, F. D. (1981). Dormitory architecture influences: Patterns of student social relations over time. Environment and Behavior, 13(1), Celce-Murcia, M. (1989). Interaction and communication in the ESOL classroom. A Forum Anthology, 4, Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do about it? NASPA Journal, 41(2), Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac. (2007). Retrieved October 20, 2007, from com/weekly/almanac/2007/nation/ htm Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Curley, P. (2003). Making campus a home. American School & University, 75(12), El-Koumy, A. S. (1997). Review of recent studies dealing with techniques for classroom interaction. Egypt. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415688) Ellen, R. (1982). Environment, substance and system. New York: Cambridge University Press. Glynn, J. G., Sauer, P. L., & Miller, T. E. (2003). Signaling student retention with prematriculation data. NASPA Journal, 41(1), Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heilweil, M. (1973). The influence of dormitory architecture on resident behavior. Environment and Behavior, 5(4), Kennedy, M. (2002). Trends shaping housing design. American School & University, 74(5), Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-ofclass experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

79 Alison Brandon Joan B. Hirt Tracey Cameron Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., Ramin, J. P., & Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moran, E. T., & Gonyea, T. (2003). The influence of academically-focused peer interaction on college students development. New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478773) Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1982). Contextual analysis as a method for assessing residence group effects. Journal of College Student Personnel, 23(2), Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1994). The impact of residential life on students. In C. C. Schroeder & P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schroeder, C. C., & Jackson, G. S. (1987). Creating conditions for student development campus living environments. NASPA Journal, 25(1), Stimpson, R. (1994). Creating a context for educational success. In C. C. Schroeder & P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 78 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

80 Interactions by Style of Hall Terenzini, P., & Pascarella, E. (1976). The relation of freshman students social and academic integration to attrition. Los Angeles: Annual Forum of the Association of Institutional Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED126843) Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Toward the validation of Tinto s model of college student attrition: A review of recent studies. Research in Higher Education, 12(3), Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1984). Freshman attrition and the residential context. The Review of Higher Education, 7(2), Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1999). Students out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Higher Education, 45(1), Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wheeler, L. (1985). Behavior and design: A memoir. Environment and Behavior, 17(1), Whitt, E. J., Edison, M., Pascarella, E. T., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1999). Interactions with peers and objective and self-reported cognitive outcomes across 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

81 The Educational Role in College Student Housing Harold C. Riker Director of Housing University of Florida David A. DeCoster Associate Director of Housing University of Georgia East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 80 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

82 While an educational role has long been recognized as a function of college student housing, administrators, faculty members, parents, and even students sometimes have difficulty integrating this expectation into an operation which also has very definite business, service, and management roles. The purpose of this paper is to define, in both theoretical and operational terms, the nature of learning as it occurs in college residence halls. Of equal importance is that it provides a model which identifies the reciprocal nature of educational and management functions as they combine to produce a total housing program that is responsive to student needs. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The educational role in college housing is founded in two very basic but very important assumptions (Riker, 1965): I. Environment Influences Behavior. Within the residential community students experience both a physical environment and an interpersonal or social environment, both of which communicate something to them on a daily basis. Thus, adequate physical facilities that support the educational process contribute in important ways to student learning. Proper lighting, soundproofing, and furnishings, for example, can transform a student room from a mere place to sleep into a most adequate and private study facility. Alternate places to study within the residence hall are most helpful as well as typing rooms, music listening rooms, reference libraries, seminar rooms, classrooms, faculty offices, and other facilities that meet the daily needs of students. The interpersonal environment can, likewise, either facilitate learning or, if impoverished, inhibit the educational process. Newcomb (1962) suggests that peer influence, although not necessarily opposed to faculty influence, is probably the more effective factor in determining the direction and quality of student attitudes. Peer norms can dictate the behavior of individual group members, A student is not a passive digester of knowledge elegantly arranged for him by superior artists of curriculum design. He listens, reads, thinks, studies, and writes at the same time that he feels, worries, hopes, loves, and hates. V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

83 Harold C. Riker David A. DeCoster and these expectations may or may not coincide with the goals of higher education. The introduction of professional and paraprofessional staff members who know students on a personal basis can also have a potent impact upon the quality of the interpersonal environment. Their role, of course, is to motivate It is simply not possible to disembody the human personality and develop a student s intellectual capacities in isolation from his cultural, spiritual, and psychological growth. Non-classroom activities, experiential learning, as well as classroom education must be developed to enhance student growth as total human beings. and initiate as well as to counsel and consult. They not only help students overcome barriers to satisfactory academic progress but also stimulate and promote activities which contribute to creative thought and intellectual curiosity. In summary then, the housing program works to enrich the environment, both physical and interpersonal, and thus enhances the learning process. The residential community becomes an integral part of the university s educational objectives. 2. Learning Is a Total Process. The second assumption is that the college experience has a major effect upon the total human personality and, further, that a variety of factors contribute to the learning process. A recent statement by the Committee on Higher Education (1968) expresses this concern: Despite our limited behavioral knowledge, the college must recognize that even its instructional goals cannot be effectively achieved unless it assumes some responsibility for facilitating the development of the total human personality. A student is not a passive digester of knowledge elegantly arranged for him by superior artists of curriculum design. He listens, reads, thinks, studies, and writes at the same time that he feels, worries, hopes, loves, and hates. He engages in all these activities not as an isolated individual but as a member of overlapping communities which greatly influence his reactions to the classroom experience. To teach the subject matter and ignore the realities of the student s life and the social systems of the college is hopelessly naive. It is simply not possible to disembody the human personality and develop a student s intellectual capacities in isolation from his cultural, spiritual, and psychological growth. Non-classroom activities, experiential learning, as well as classroom education must be developed to enhance student growth as total human beings. Students spend more time in their place of residence than in all other locations on campus combined, and the role of professional and student-staff members again 82 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

84 The Educational Role in College Student Housing becomes a prominent factor regarding the total educational process. A recent study conducted at Ohio University (Estler, 1969) identified five major goals of higher education: I. Social Awareness and Responsibility 2. Political Awareness 3. Human Values 4. Self Awareness and Growth 5. Vocational Learning It is of interest that students in this study reported that their significant discussions regarding these important areas most often took place within their residence halls except in the area of Vocational Learning which most frequently took place in the classroom. Also important is that these meaningful discussions were overwhelmingly stimulated by peers, neighbors in their living unit, except again for Vocational Learning which most often involved a professor and classmates. It seems, then, that learning is very much a part of residence hall life. Opportunities to enrich these learning experiences will rest with the effectiveness and relevance of the total housing program. STUDENT HOUSING OBJECTIVES As a basic reference point for the educational role and function of college student housing, a hierarchy of general objectives for housing is offered in Table 1. It is hoped that this build- Table 1 General Objectives for College Student Housing Interpersonal Environment (Student-Oriented) Physical Environment (Facility-Oriented) Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level I Opportunities for individual growth and development Development of an interpersonal environment that reflects responsible citizenship and a concern for others, as well as an atmosphere conducive to learning Establishment of guidelines that provide structure for compatible and cooperative community living Adequate care and maintenance of the physical facilities Provision of a satisfactory physical environment through new construction and renovation Educational Functions Management Functions V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

85 Harold C. Riker David A. DeCoster ing block presentation of objectives will illustrate the interrelated nature of the educational and managerial efforts that are so vital to the total effectiveness of the housing program upon students. While the five categories merge and blend to form a continuum, each level represents a somewhat distinct set of student needs. Success at any one level will depend to a large degree on how well student needs are fulfilled at lower levels. We are unlikely to engender much interest in educational or cultural programs (level 4), for example, if students are preoccupied with excessive noise in their residential unit (level 3) or if they perceive their physical environment as grossly inadequate (level I). Objectives at the first two levels are met most directly through the management personnel, while the educational or instructional staff provides leadership to fulfill objectives at the fourth and fifth levels. The point rather is this: the overall objectives of college housing are interrelated and interdependent. Unless an adequate job is accomplished in each of the five categories the housing program will fail to realize its total contribution to the university and to the students it serves. Management and educational personnel share responsibility in meeting requirements at level three, providing guidelines regarding their respective areas of specialization that help to maintain orderly and compatible group living. 84 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g

86 The Educational Role in College Student Housing This model does not mean to suggest that objectives or needs at any one level are more important than those at another level. The point rather is this: the overall objectives of college housing are interrelated and interdependent. Unless an adequate job is accomplished in each of the five categories the housing program will fail to realize its total contribution to the university and to the students it serves. Furthermore, achieving total effectiveness requires careful planning and close cooperation between management and instructional personnel. Each must respect the other s area of expertise, and each must realize that a successful housing program depends upon their mutual support in meeting the varied needs of student residents. References Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The Student in Higher Education. New Haven: Hazen Foundation Estler, Susan. A critical incident study of learning at Ohio University. Masters thesis, Ohio University, June Newcomb, T.M. Student peer-group influence and intellectual outcomes of college experience. In R.L. Sutherland et al. (Eds.) Personality of the College Campus. Austin, University of Texas, 1962, Riker, H.C. College housing as learning centers. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, V o l u m e 3 5, No. 2 O c t o b e r / N o v e m b e r

87 A Commentary on The Educational Role in College Student Housing Carolyn Palmer Associate Professor Higher Education and Student Affairs Bowling Green State University Ellen M. Broido Associate Professor Higher Education and Student Affairs Bowling Green State University Jo Campbell Director of Residence Life The University of Toledo Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 86 T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t H o u s i n g