Report on Student Involvement · Most often involvement is defined in limited terms, such as...

Report on Student Involvement

Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership

University of Maryland

October 3, 2008

Craig Slack

Ramsey Jabaji

Corbin Campbell

Barbara Jacoby

Sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs,

Adele H. Stamp Student Union – Center for Campus Life

Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership UM Report on Involvement

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 3

II. Methodology 4

III. Results 5

A. Overall Involvement 6

B. Types of Student Involvement 7

College Organizations 7

Off Campus Community Organizations 8

Community Service 9

Service Groups 10

Mentoring Overall 11

Mentoring by Student Affairs Staff Members 12

Mentoring by Faculty Members 13

Mentoring by Other Students 14

Leadership Training (Short, Moderate, or Long Term) 15

Learning Communities 16

Study Abroad 17

Working Off Campus 18

Working On Campus 19

C. Barriers to Involvement 20

IV. Limitations of the Report 21

V. Using the Data 21

Appendix A Demographics 22

Appendix B University of Maryland MSL Team Members 24


3

I. Introduction

In 2006, the University of Maryland participated in the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, a

national study of student leadership drawing data from 52 institutions and over 63,000

respondents (response rate 38%). The University of Maryland collected data from 3,410

students (38% response rate). Appendix A details the demographics of this group of students.

The survey included various items and scales that tap constructs that have been linked to student

leadership outcomes. The study was sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Leadership

Programs and the Adele H. Stamp Student Union – Center for Campus Life.

This report includes an analysis of the University of Maryland data, with a focus on student

involvement. A campus-wide committee was convened to determine the focus of the analysis

(see Appendix B). The committee chose involvement because it is linked to important student

outcomes, including satisfaction, retention, and success. Involvement is also a focus of the

University’s strategic plan, Transforming Maryland: Higher Expectations. Under Part 1,

Institutional Priorities, Undergraduate Education, the plan indicates that the University will

“enhance and expand experiences outside the classroom.”

In particular, this report focuses on the uninvolved student. Initial analysis revealed that 97% of

survey participants are involved in some fashion (see page 5). We know that highly involved

students receive significant attention from the University. As a result, the committee chose to

highlight the experience of the uninvolved student. Throughout this report, findings that shed

light on students who are not involved or less involved in a wide range of activities and

organizations.

Most often involvement is defined in limited terms, such as involvement in student organizations.

The committee chose to investigate involvement more broadly to encompass a variety of

possible ways that a student could be involved. This report explores the following questions:

How does UM compare with research institutions and with the national sample on various types

of student involvement? Who is uninvolved overall? What type of UM student is uninvolved in

on campus organizations? Community organizations? Community service? Leadership training?

Learning communities? Who is not being mentored? Who does not study abroad? This study

also asked about the types of students who work both on and off campus since working has been

linked to level of involvement. For those who are uninvolved, what is inhibiting their

involvement?


4

II. Methodology

In the second results section, Types of Student Involvement, a descriptive analysis is presented,

comparing UM to the 22 research-extensive institutions that participated in the Multi-

Institutional Study of Leadership. Please note that this is not a random sample of research-

extensive institutions, but rather institutions that chose to participate in the study, likely due to

interest in student leadership. To obtain a list of participating institutions in the 2006 study, visit

http://leadershipstudy.net/ir-enrolled-schools-2006.html.

In addition, in order to investigate the types of students who were not involved in various

activities, logistic regression analysis was used (p < .05). The following were included as

independent variables: gender, race, transfer status, worked off campus, worked on campus,

study abroad, learning community participation, place of residence, first generation college

student status, pre-college involvement on campus scale, and pre-college involvement off

campus scale. Class year was included as a control variable since several questions asked

students to respond with the time reference “since starting college.” The following were

included as dependent variables: involvement in college organizations, involvement in off

campus community organizations, community service, service groups, mentoring (overall, by

student affairs staff members, by faculty members, and by peers), leadership training,

participation in learning communities, study abroad, working off campus, and working on

campus. Variables that were included as independent variables, but were also of interest as

outcomes (such as working on and off campus, study abroad participation, and learning

community participation) were removed as independent variables for those analyses.

Variables with frequency responses were recoded as dichotomous (Yes: involved to some degree;

or No: not involved at all). The race variable was recoded to pull students who identified as

Native American and other ethnicities into the Native American category instead of multiracial

Place of residence was recoded into on campus (residence halls, South Campus

Commons/University Courtyard, sorority/fraternity houses) and off campus (parent’s house, own

house, off campus apartment).

The third results section, Barriers to Involvement, explores what has inhibited the involvement of

certain sub-populations of students (by gender, race, class year, transfer status, first generation

status, living off/on campus, and commuter status). Initial descriptive crosstab differences were

further examined with the chi-square test of independence (p<.05).


5

III. Results

A. Overall Involvement

Omnibus Involvement

A dichotomous variable was created to investigate who was not involved in any of the following

types of involvement: college organizations, off campus community organizations,

community service, mentoring by any of the types of mentors, any length of leadership

training, study abroad, and learning communities.

How We Compare

Involved in College Organizations, Off Campus Organizations,

Community Service, Mentorship, Leadership Training, Study

Abroad, or a Learning Community

97% 98% 98%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UM Research National

• UM compares similarly to research institutions and national institutions on the overall

involvement of respondents.

• A vast majority of respondents at UM are involved in some way (97%).

• Since most respondents are involved, there is not sufficient variability to complete a

logistic regression analysis on what types of respondents are uninvolved.


6

Omnibus Involvement (Excluding Mentorship)

Since a majority of UM respondents were mentored, we wanted to determine whether

respondents were involved when mentorship was excluded. Therefore, a dichotomous variable

was created to investigate who was not involved in any of the following types of involvement:

college organizations, off campus community organizations, community service, any length of

leadership training, study abroad, and learning communities.

How We Compare

Involved in Any of The Above (Excluding Mentorship)

93% 93% 93%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• UM compares similarly to research institutions and national institutions on the overall

involvement of respondents when mentorship is excluded.

• Even when mentorship is excluded, an overwhelming majority of respondents are

involved in some way (93%).

• Since most respondents are involved, there is not sufficient variability to complete a

logistic regression analysis on what types of respondents are uninvolved.


7

B. Types of Student Involvement

The first set of analyses compares UM’s involvement to that of research institutions and national

dataset. Then, for each type of involvement, the results of the logistic regression analyses reveal

what types of respondents have greater or lesser odds of being involved.

College Organizations

How We Compare

“Since starting college, [have you participated] in college organizations?”

Involvement in College Organizations

80% 81% 78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• Percentages of respondents who are involved in college organizations for both UM and

research institutions hovers at or just above 80%, which the national average is slightly

below (78%).

Who is not involved in college organizations?

• Respondents who have studied abroad have 2.3 times greater odds of being involved in

college organizations compared to those that did not study abroad.

• Respondents who participated in learning communities have 2.3 times greater odds of

being involved in college organizations than those who did not participate in learning

communities.

• Respondents who were involved on or off campus pre-college have, respectively, 1.8

and 1.5 times greater odds of being involved in college organizations than those who

were not involved pre-college.

• Respondents who live off campus have 56% lower odds of being involved in college

organizations than respondents who live on campus.

• There were no significant differences by gender, race, transfer status, first generation

college student status, pre-college involvement on campus, and pre-college involvement

off campus.


8

Off Campus Community Organizations

How We Compare

“Since starting college, how often have you been an involved member or active participant in an

off-campus community organization (e.g. PTA, church group)?”

Involvement in Off Campus Organizations

37%43% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are involved in off campus community

organizations (e.g. PTA, church group) is 37%, while the research institution and national

dataset percentages are slightly greater (43% and 44%, respectively).

Who is not involved in off campus organizations?

• Men have 1.3 times greater odds of being involved in off campus organizations than

women.

• Asian American respondents and “not included” race respondents have, respectively,

1.5 and 4.1 times greater odds of being involved in off campus organizations than White

respondents. Race overall is a significant predictor.

• Those who were involved in a learning community have 1.4 times greater odds of being

involved in off campus organizations.

• Those who were involved in high school organizations pre-college are less likely to be

involved in off campus organizations during college.

• Those who were involved in organizations other than those at their high schools pre-

college are more likely to be involved in off campus organizations during college.

• There were no significant differences by transfer status, working off campus, working on

campus, study abroad, place of residence, and first generation college student status.


9

Community Service

How We Compare

“In an average academic term, do you engage in community service?”

Involvement in Community Service

45%

54% 52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are involved in community service is 45%, while

the research institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (54% and

52%, respectively).

Who is not involved in community service?

• Respondents involved in a learning community have 2.3 times greater odds of being

involved in community service.

• Respondents who study abroad have 1.7 times greater odds of being involved in

community service.

• Respondents who live off campus have 27% lower odds of being involved in community

service.

• Involvement off campus pre-college was a positive predictor of involvement in

community service during college.

• There were no significant differences by gender, race, transfer status, working off campus,

working on campus, first generation college student status, and pre-college involvement

on campus.


10

Service Groups

How We Compare

“Have you been involved in a service student group (e.g. Circle K, Alpha Phi Omega [APO])?”

Involvement in Service Groups

9%13% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are involved in on campus service groups is 9%,

while the research institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (13%

and 12%, respectively).

Who is not involved in Service Groups?

• Native American and Asian American respondents have, respectively, 3.6 and 2.1 times

greater odds than White respondents of being involved in service groups.

• Respondents who work on campus have 1.7 times greater odds of being involved in

service groups than those that do not work on campus.

• Respondents who live off campus have 45% lower odds of being involved in service

groups than those that live on campus.

• Involvement off campus pre-college was a positive predictor of involvement in service

groups during college.

• There were no significant differences by gender, transfer status, working off campus,

study abroad, learning community participation, first generation college student status,

and pre-college involvement on campus.


11

Mentoring Overall

Percent mentored by any type of mentor (Student Affairs, Faculty, Other Student, Employer, or

Community Member).

How We Compare

“At any time during your college experience, how often have you been in mentoring

relationships [with student affairs staff, faculty, employers, community members, or other

students] where another person intentionally assisted your growth or connected you to

opportunities for career and personal development?

Mentored by Student Affairs, Faculty, Employer,

Community Member, or Peer

86% 88% 88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• Most UM respondents (86%) are mentored by student affairs, faculty, other students,

their employer, or a community member. Similarly, 88% of respondents from both

research institutions and the national dataset are mentored.

Which students are not mentored (by student affairs, faculty, employers, community

members, or other students)?


mentored than those who are not in learning communities.

• Living off campus decreases the odds of mentorship by 38%.

• Pre-college involvement off campus increases the likelihood of mentorship.


working on campus, study abroad, first generation college student status, and pre-college

involvement on campus.


12

Mentoring by Student Affairs Staff Members

How We Compare

Mentored by Student Affairs

49% 52% 53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are mentored by student affairs is 49%, while the

research institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (52% and 53%,

respectively).

Which respondents are not mentored by Student Affairs staff members?

• Men are 31% less likely to be mentored by Student Affairs staff members than women.

• Asian American respondents have 1.8 times greater odds of being mentored by student

affairs than White respondents.

• Respondents who work off campus are 26% less likely to be mentored by Student

Affairs staff members than respondents who do not work off campus.


mentored by Student Affairs.

• Pre-college involvement in both high school organizations and in organizations not

associated with high school increases the likelihood of mentoring by Student Affairs.

• There were no significant differences by transfer status, working on campus, study

abroad, place of residence, and first generation college student status.


13

Mentoring by Faculty Members

How We Compare

Mentored by Faculty

64% 67% 70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are mentored by faculty members is 64%. The

Research institution percentage (67%) is slightly higher than UM and the national dataset

percentage is slightly higher than that of the research institutions (70%).

Which respondents are not mentored by faculty members?

• Respondents who work on campus have 1.4 times greater odds of being mentored by

faculty than respondents who do not work on campus.

• Respondents who study abroad have 1.9 times greater odds of being mentored by

faculty.

• Respondents who are involved in a learning community have 1.7 times greater odds of

being mentored by faculty.

• There were no significant differences by gender, transfer status, working off campus,

place of residence, first generation college student status, pre-college involvement on

campus, and pre-college involvement off campus.


14

Mentoring by Other Students

How We Compare

Mentored by Another Student

68%72% 72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• Of all of the five types of mentors investigated in this study (Student Affairs, Faculty,

Other Student, Community Member, and Employer), mentorship by a peer was the most

frequent.

• The UM percentage of respondents who are mentored by other students is 68%, while the

research institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (72%).

Which respondents are not mentored by other students?

• Respondents who are involved in a learning community have 1.5 times greater odds of

being mentored by other students.

• Pre-college involvement off campus increases the likelihood of mentoring by other

students.


working on campus, study abroad, place of residence, first generation college student

status, and pre-college involvement on campus.


15

Leadership Training (Short, Moderate, or Long Term)

How We Compare

“Since starting college, how many times have you participated in the following types [short-term,

moderate term, and long-term] of training or education that developed your leadership skills (ex:

courses, Resident Assistant training, organization retreats, job training)?”

Involvement in Leadership Training

62% 64% 65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who are involved in leadership training is 62%, while

the research institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (64% and

65%, respectively).

Who is not involved in leadership training (short-term, moderate term, or long term)?

• African American respondents have 1.7 times greater odds of having had a leadership

experience than White respondents.

• Transfer respondents have 35% lower odds than non-transfers of being involved in

leadership experiences.


involved in leadership experiences than those who are not involved in Learning

Communities.

• Both on and off campus pre-college involvement are significant positive predictors in

leadership experiences.

• There were no significant differences by gender, working off campus, working on

campus, study abroad, place of residence, and first generation college student status.


16

Learning Communities

How We Compare

“Have you participated in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of

students take two or more classes together?”

Involvement in a Learning Community

35%

19% 19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• 35% of UM respondents are involved in a learning community, which is much greater

than the research institution or national percentage (19%).

Who is not involved in learning communities?

• Latino respondents have 2.4 times greater odds than White respondents of being in

learning communities.

• Transfer respondents have 75% lower odds of being involved in learning communities

than non-transfer respondents.

• Respondents who studied abroad have 2.1 times greater odds of being involved in

learning communities than those who did not study abroad.

• Pre-college on campus involvement is a significant positive predictor for involvement

in college learning communities.

• There were no significant differences by gender, working off campus, working on

campus, place of residence, first generation college student status, and pre-college

involvement off campus.


17

Study Abroad

How We Compare

“Have you studied abroad?”

Studied Abroad

10% 11% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• 10% of UM respondents had studied abroad. Similarly, 11% of respondents from both

research institutions and the national dataset had studied abroad.

Which respondents do not study abroad?

• Men have 47% lower odds of studying abroad than women.

• African American and Asian American respondents have, respectively, 83% and 67%

lower odds of studying abroad than White respondents. Race is a significant predictor

for studying abroad.

• Respondents that participate in a learning community have 2.3 times greater odds of

studying abroad than those who do not participate.

• First generation college students have 52% lower odds of studying abroad than non

first generation students.

• There were no significant differences by transfer status, working off campus, working on

campus, place of residence, pre-college involvement off campus, and pre-college

involvement on campus.


18

Working Off Campus

How We Compare

“Are you currently working off campus?”

Worked Off Campus

35%30%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• 35% of UM respondents work off campus, which is similar to the national dataset (36%).

The percentage of respondents in research institutions who work off campus is slightly

lower (30%).

Who works off campus?

• Native American and “Not included” race respondents have, respectively, 3.0 and 2.9

times greater odds than White respondents of working off campus.

• Respondents who work on-campus have 39% lower odds of working off-campus than

respondents who do not.

• Respondents who live off campus have 2.4 times greater odds of working off campus

than respondents that live on campus.

• Pre-college off campus involvement is a significant positive predictor for working off

campus.

• There were no significant differences by gender, learning community participation, study

abroad, first generation college student status, and pre-college involvement on campus.


19

Working On Campus

How We Compare

“Are you currently working on campus?”

Worked On Campus

25%28% 27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


• The UM percentage of respondents who work on campus is 25%, while the research

institution and national dataset percentages are slightly greater (28% and 27%,

respectively).

Who works on campus?

• Multiracial respondents have 1.9 times greater odds than White respondents of working

on campus.

• Transfer respondents have 49% lower odds of working on campus than non-transfers.

• Respondents that live off campus have 37% lower odds of working on campus than those

that live on campus.

• Respondents that work off campus have 47% lower odds of working on campus than

those that do not work off campus.

• There were no significant differences by gender, learning community participation, study

abroad, first generation college student status, pre-college involvement off campus, and

pre-college involvement on campus.


20

C. Barriers to Involvement

Participants were asked, “What has inhibited your involvement in campus programs or student

organizations?” Among the 17 response options, the most frequently selected responses were

those that related to time constraints. The following were the top three selected barriers:

• I just don’t have time. (40%)

• Events are not scheduled at convenient times for me. (28%)

• My work responsibilities conflict. (26%)

There were two other notable barriers. The fourth most frequently selected barrier was related to

awareness of the opportunities (I’m not aware of the opportunities/I don’t hear about them: 22%).

The fifth was related to social needs (I don’t want to go alone: 18%). All other barriers were

selected by fewer than 14% of participants.

Cross tabs (and in certain cases, chi-square analyses) were run to determine if there were

differences in barriers to involvement by gender, race, class year, transfer status, first-generation

status, and place of residence (on or off campus).

According to the results of the chi-square analysis (p<.05):

• Work responsibilities

o Latino and Native American respondents are significantly over-represented and

White respondents are significantly under-represented among respondents who

state that work responsibilities have inhibited their involvement.

o Respondents who live off campus are significantly over-represented and

respondents who live on campus are significantly under-represented among

respondents who state that work responsibilities have inhibited their involvement.

• Family/Personal relationship responsibilities

o Latino respondents are significantly over-represented and White respondents are

significantly under-represented among respondents who state that family/personal

relationship responsibilities have inhibited their involvement.



respondents who state that family/personal relationship responsibilities have

inhibited their involvement.

• Safety concerns

o Female respondents are significantly over-represented and male respondents are

significantly under-represented among respondents who state that concern for

safety when going to and from events or meetings at night has inhibited their

involvement.

• Interest in Programs/Activities

o Male respondents are significantly over-represented and female respondents are

significantly under-represented among respondents who state that their

involvement has been inhibited because “programs/organizations available are not

interesting to me.”

• Attending Events Alone

o Female respondents are significantly over-represented and male respondents are

significantly under-represented among respondents who state that their

involvement has been inhibited because “I don’t want to go alone.”


21

• Trips to Campus



respondents who state that making additional trips to campus has inhibited their

involvement.

IV. Limitations of the Report

This report relies on self-report data. Although self-report data can be informative and useful,

several limitations should be considered when interpreting results. Social desirability bias may

result when respondents believe that it is in their best interest to provide data that is untrue or

exaggerated. Likewise, they may be reluctant to provide information that is embarrassing or

uncomfortable to divulge. In addition, respondents may overestimate or underestimate their

abilities or rates of participation.

The report authors note that internships are an important form of student involvement. However,

this form of involvement was not included in this report. It will be included in future analyses.

V. Using the Data

Most campus units offer some form of involvement, employment, and/or mentoring

opportunities for students. While not all the data in this report may be relevant to your work, we

encourage you to use those elements that do relate. Some suggestions for using the data include:

• Review and discuss relevant findings with your colleagues. Share this report with others

in your unit to start discussions of which students are or are not involved in the

opportunities you offer. Discuss how these findings confirm or refute your assumptions,

perceptions, and experiences.

• Augment and clarify the data through qualitative measures such as focus groups or

interviews. Use the findings to engage students in conversation about areas of the report

that are particularly relevant to your work.

• Use the data to help inform unit decisions about programmatic offerings, student

employment, mentoring opportunities offered, budget expenditures, marketing, and the

like.

• Be cautious when comparing findings from this report with the reports of other campus

data collection efforts, such as those of the Campus Assessment Working Group, the

National Survey of Student Engagement, and EduVentures. Each of these studies uses

different samples and methodologies, so the results are not directly comparable.

• Propose areas for further data collection or analysis to the University of Maryland MSL

team. Contact Dr. Barbara Jacoby, [email protected], 303-314-7253 with questions and

suggestions.


22

Appendix A: Demographics

Race Count Percent

White 755 61.3

African American/ Black 113 9.2

American Indian 28 2.3

Asian American 168 13.6

Latino 44 3.6

Multiracial 91 7.4

Not included 32 2.6

Total 1231 100.0

Gender Count Percent

Female 706 57.4

Male 525 42.6

Total 1231 100.0

Transfer Status Count Percent

Started here 863 69.9

Started elsewhere 372 30.1

Total 1235 100.0

Lives On/Off Campus Count Percent

Lives off campus (parent's home, own home, rental off campus, greek, other)

628 51.1

Lives on Campus (residence hall, campus commons/courtyard)

600 48.9

Total 1228 100.0

Class Standing Count Percent

First year/freshman 211 17.1

Sophomore 290 23.5

Junior 366 29.6

Senior 369 29.9

Total 1236 100.0

Types of Student Organization Involvement

Academic/ Departmental/ Professional (e.g., Pre-Law Society, an academic fraternity, Engineering Club)

Arts/Theater/Music (e.g., Theater group, Marching Band)

Campus-wide programming groups (e.g., program board, film series board, a multicultural programming

committee)

Cultural/ International (e.g., Black Student Union, German Club)

Honor Society (e.g., Omicron Delta Kappa [ODK], Mortar Board, Phi Beta Kappa)

Living-learning programs (e.g., language house, leadership floors, ecology halls)

Leadership (e.g., Peer Leadership Program, Emerging Leaders Program)

Media (e.g., Campus Radio, Student Newspaper)

Military (e.g., ROTC)

New Student Transitions (e.g., admissions ambassador, orientation advisor)

Para professional group (e.g., Resident assistants, peer health educators)

Political/ Advocacy (e.g., College Democrats, Students Against Sweatshops)

Religious (e.g., Campus Crusades for Christ, Hillel)

Service (e.g., Circle K, Alpha Phi Omega [APO])

Culturally based fraternities and sororities (e.g., National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) groups such as Alpha Phi


23

Alpha Fraternity Inc., or Latino Greek Council groups such as Lambda Theta Alpha)

Social fraternities or sororities (e.g. Panhellenic or Interfraternity Council groups such as Sigma Phi Epsilon or

Kappa Kappa Gamma)

Sports- Intercollegiate or Varsity (e.g., NCAA Hockey, Varsity Soccer)

Sports- Club (e.g., Club Volleyball)

Sports- Leisure or Intramural (ex: Intramural flag football, Rock Climbing)

Special Interest (ex: Comedy Group)

Student governance group (ex: Student Government Association, Residence Hall Association, Interfraternity

Council)


24

Appendix B: University of Maryland MSL Campus Partners Committee

Craig Slack- Chair

Donna Lim-Chair

Martha Baer Wilmes

Dan Balón

Sue Briggs

Corbin Campbell

Wallace Eddy

John Garland

Marsha Guenzler-Stevens

Nina Harris

Pat Hunt

Anita Israel

Ramsey Jabaji

Beth Niehaus

Barbara Jacoby

Jim Osteen

Joanne Prosser

Erin Rooney Eckel

Wendy Wagner

Report on Student Involvement · Most often involvement is defined in limited terms, such as...

Documents

Transcript of Report on Student Involvement · Most often involvement is defined in limited terms, such as...