Psychosocial Engagement in

Vanderbilt Residence Halls

Morrie SwerlickChris TarnackiApril 12, 2012

Background Information

• 3 Broad Types of Housing at Vanderbilt• Martha Rivers Ingram Commons• Upperclassmen Residence Halls• Living Learning Communities

• Residential Life at Vanderbilt• “All unmarried undergraduate students, except those who live

with their parents or legal guardians in Davidson County, must live in residence halls on campus during the academic year, May session, and summer sessions. Authorization to live elsewhere is granted at the discretion of the Director of Housing Assignments in special situations or when space is unavailable on campus.” (Office of Housing and Residential Education Website)

• 93% of undergraduates live on campus

Tinto’s Interactionist Model of Student Persistence

Social

Integration

Subsequent Institution

al Commitment

(IC-2)

Persistence

Tinto, 1975

Tinto’s Interactionist Model of Student Persistence Testable Propositions

The greater the degree of social integration, the greater the level of subsequent commitment to the institution.

The greater the level of subsequent commitment to the institution, the greater the likelihood of student persistence in college.

Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson, 1997

Influences on Social Integration in Residential Colleges and

Universities Commitment of the Institution to Student Welfare

Communal Potential Institutional Integrity

Proactive Social Adjustment Psychosocial Engagement

Ability to Pay

Bolded influences explain 41% of the variance in social integration and were shown to be statistically significant.

Braxton, Hirschy, and McLendon, 2004

Braxton, Doyle, Jones, et al, Forthcoming

Psychosocial Engagement “Making new friends and getting involved in the social

life of a college or university require both time and a considerable investment of psychological energy.”

“The investment of psychological energy in interactions with peers and participation in extracurricular activities provide students with the social experiences they need to make judgments about their level of social integration.”

“The greater the level of psychological energy a student invests in various social interactions at his or her college or university, the greater the student’s degree of social integration.”

Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon, 2004

Do differences in the characteristics of residence halls at Vanderbilt have a

significant impact on psychosocial engagement?

Quality of Life Survey Administered annually to Vanderbilt

undergraduates across all classes. Measures many aspects of student life at

Vanderbilt including alcohol and drug use, study habits, religion, and social behaviors.

Also includes select demographic data. We used existing data from the Quality of Life

survey from the Fall of 2011.

Differences Between Commons and Upperclass

HallsCommons Characteristic Upperclass

Residence HallsStudents are more or less randomly

assigned roommates and residence halls

SelectionStudents can select

their own roommates and

rooms.All First Year

Students Students Sophomores through Seniors

Yes Faculty-in-Residence No

No Student’s Greek Affiliation Yes

Almost none Existing Social Relationships Established

Development of Index Questions were asked on the Quality of Life survey. 6 items of the Index (1-5; 1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree)

How many programs sponsored by your residence hall have you attended this past semester? 1. None, 2. 1 program, 3. 2 programs, 4. 3 or more

I am satisfied with the quality of life on my floor. I am satisfied with my social experience at Vanderbilt. There are sufficient programs (activities) that interest me on campus. I know most of the people on my floor. I have developed a close working relationship with at least one faculty

member at Vanderbilt.

Used Z-Scores to standardize responses on the different scales Composite score was calculated by adding the z-scores and a

constant of 10.

Descriptive StatisticsFactor Percent VanderbiltMale 39.50% 49.60%Female 61% 50.40%White 68% 72.90%Non-White 32% 27.10%Above $100K 58.80% N/ABelow $100K 41.20% N/A

Descriptive Statistics

Commons Upperclass Commons Upperclass Commons UpperclassHow many programs sponsored by your residence hall have you attended this past semester?

379 249 3.45 1.86 .866 .996

I am satisfied with the quality of life on my floor.

379 249 3.95 3.78 1.028 1.061

I am satisfied with my social experience at Vanderbilt.

379 249 3.94 3.93 1.072 1.101

There are sufficient programs (activities) that interest me on campus.

379 249 4.11 3.97 .885 1.008

I know most of the people on my floor.

379 249 3.75 2.56 1.215 1.310

I have developed a close working relationship with at least one faculty member at Vanderbilt.

379 249 3.11 3.64 1.136 1.053

Comparison: Commons and Upperclass Respondants

N Mean Std. Deviation

Descriptive StatisticsCommons Upperclass Commons Upperclass Commons Upperclass

Composite 379 249 60.7852 58.7335 3.48296 3.44847

Occupancy 379 249 187.5831 249.8554 62.90267 92.14467

RA Ratio 379 249 35.2824 49.1442 7.23195 6.75737

Variable N Mean Std. Deviation

Composite- Sum of standardized scores from 6 items plus 10Occupancy- Average number of students in halls. Based on numbers from 10th day occupancy report Fall 2011RA Ratio- Ratio of Resident Advisors to residents. Based on 10th day occupancy report and numbers from RA Roster Fall 2011.

Group Comparisons

Equal variances assumed .409 .523 -7.249 .000 -2.05168 .28301

Equal variances not assumed

-7.264 .000 -2.05168 .28243

Equal variances assumed 128.749 .000 10.064 .000 62.27231 6.18735

Equal variances not assumed

9.331 .000 62.27231 6.67375

Equal variances assumed 19.456 .000 24.111 .000 13.86184 .57493

Equal variances not assumed

24.452 .000 13.86184 .56690

Independent Samples Test: Commons vs Upperclass

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

RA Ratio

Std. Error Difference

Occupancy

Composite

Occupancy

t

Regression Models Recoded Variables

Commons Variable (Commons=1, All other halls=0) Race/Ethnicity (White=1, All other responses=0) Gender (Male=1, Female=0) Family Income

$100,000 and above =1 Below $100,000 =0

RA Ratio and Occupancy were recoded into High, Medium, and Low based on percentiles. Occupancy

Below 167.0 residents recoded as “low.” 167.00 to 285.00 recoded as “medium.” Above 285.00 recoded as “high.”

RA Ratio Below 33.67 Students per RA recoded as “low” 33.67 to 45.25 recoded as “medium” Above 45.25 recoded as “high”

Regression Models

Regression ModelsR R Square

Adjusted R Square

.323a .104 .098

Variables B Std. Error(Constant) 60.086 .376 159.812 .000Male .187 .281 .667 .505White 1.258 .300 4.191 .000Above $100,000

-.137 .283 -.483 .629

Commons 2.134 .281 7.594 .000

Unstandardized Coefficientst Sig.

Summary of Findings Students in the Commons scored higher on the psychosocial

engagement index than students in upperclass residence halls.

These halls also had, on average, a lower Student-RA ratio and were smaller.

Controlling for race, gender, and income: Excluding the Commons variable, having more students per RA

lead to a statistically significant lower score on the psychosocial engagement index.

Having a hall with a medium capacity had a statistically significant positive effect on psychosocial engagement versus a hall with low occupancy.

Living in the Commons had a statistically significant positive influence on psychosocial engagement.

Threats to External Validity It would be difficult to generalize the findings

of this study beyond Vanderbilt. The high rate of students who live on campus. The high retention rate of the school. The fundamental differences in housing for

first year students and for upperclassmen A very active Greek system

Threats to Internal Validity Low R2 suggests that both of our models

account for very little of the variance of psychosocial engagement.

While the Commons model is good for psychosocial engagement, students change.

A more conclusive study would require students of all class years to be mixed in residence halls. Some that use the Commons model and some that don’t.

Final Thoughts The Commons appears works… but is it necessarily better than

the upperclass hall model? We can’t really say. One of the main goals of the Commons is encouraging healthy

social relationships among first year students. “First-year students live and learn together in the 10 Houses of The

Ingram Commons – each guided by a Faculty Head of House, a professor and mentor who lives among the students of the house. Together they create the first of four transformative years at Vanderbilt where students are encouraged to develop and contribute their intellectual, social, ethical and personal talents to the fullest. “ (Commons website)

The effect on first year students should not be extrapolated onto upperclassmen

Some of the aspects of the Commons, smaller residence halls and lower student-to-RA ratios also encourage psychosocial engagement among all students.

ReferencesTinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Reveiew of Educational Research, 45

Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.S., and Johnson, R. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 12, pp. 107-164). New York: Agathon.

Braxton, J.M., Hirschy, A.S., and McClendon, S.A. (2004). Understanding and Reducing College Student Departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 30, No. 3)

Braxton, J.M., Doyle, W.R., Jones, W.A, et al (forthcoming). Rethinking College Student Retention: Preliminary Findings

Housing and Residential Education (2012). About our residence halls. (20120, April 4). Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ResEd/main/housing/about-our-residence-halls/

Special ThanksDr. John Braxton, Professor of Education, Peabody College-Vanderbilt University

Dr. Pat Helland, Associate Dean, Office of the Dean of Students

Mary Hutchens, Ph.D. candidate, Peabody College- Vanderbilt University

Jason Jakubowski, Director of Housing Assignments, Office of Housing and Residential Education