University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 1

Improving Faculty Participation in Student Conduct Hearing Boards: A Gap Analysis

by

Raymond A. Carlos

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Raymond A. Carlos

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 2
Table of Contents

Dedication 6

Acknowledgements 7

List of Tables 8

List of Figures 9

Abstract 10

Chapter One: Introduction 11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Status 13
Related Literature 13
Importance of Addressing the Problem 15
Organizational Performance Goal 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholder Groups for this Study 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions 17
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 18
Definitions 18
Organization of the Project 19

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 20
General Research and Factors Influencing Faculty on Student Conduct
Hearing Boards
Student Conduct 20
Due Process 21
Title IX 22
Accountability Philosophies 22
Privacy Laws 23
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Framework 24
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 25
Faculty Knowledge and Skills 25
Knowledge Influences 25
Faculty knowledge of the importance of hearing
boards 26
Faculty knowledge of student’s due process rights 27
Faculty knowledge of creating a positive emotional
climate 28
Faculty Motivation 31
Expectancy Value Theory 31
Faculty Attainment Value 31
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 3
Faculty Cost Value 32
Faculty Utility Value 32
Faculty Organizational Influences 33
Conflict in the Classroom 34
Recognition of Faculty Members 35
Responsibilities for Full-Time Faculty 35
Conclusion 37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 39

Chapter Three: Methods 42
Participating Stakeholders 42
Survey Sampling Criterion Rationale 43
Criterion 1 43
Criterion 2 43
Survey Sample, (Recruitment) Strategy, and Rationale 43
Interviewing Sampling Criterion and Rationale 43
Criterion 1 43
Criterion 2 44
Criterion 3 44
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 44
Data Collection and Instrumentation 44
Surveys 45
Interviews 46
Data Analysis 46
Credibility and Trustworthiness 47
Validity and Reliability 47
Ethics 48
Limitations and Delimitations 50

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 52
Participating Stakeholders 53
Results 55
Knowledge Results 55
Motivation Results 59
Organizational Results 62
Findings 63
Knowledge Findings 64
Familiarity with Student Conduct Hearing Boards and Shared
Governance 64
A Positive Emotional Climate 66
Motivation Findings 67
Attainment Value 68
Cost Value 69
Utility Value 70
Organizational Findings 71
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 4
Responsibilities of Faculty 72
Synthesis 73
Faculty and Their Deficiency in Knowledge about Hearing Boards 73
Faculty Conflicting Values for Serving on Hearing Boards 74
Organizational Culture and Deterrence 74

Chapter Five: Recommended Solutions 75
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 75
Knowledge Recommendations 75
Introduction 75
Declarative Knowledge Solutions 76
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions 77
Motivation Recommendations 78
Introduction 78
Value 79
Organization Recommendations 81
Introduction 81
Policies 83
Cultural Models 83
Cultural Settings 83
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 84
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 84
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 85
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 85
Level 3: Behavior 87
Critical Behaviors 87
Required Drivers 88
Organizational Support 89
Level 2: Learning 90
Learning Goals 90
Program 90
Components of Learning 91
Level 1: Reaction 93
Measuring Reactions 94
Evaluation Tools 93
Immediately Following the Program Implementation 93
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation 94
Data Analysis and Reporting 94
Summary 95
Conclusion 96

References 99

Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Items 104
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 110
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 5
Appendix C: Informed Consent, Information Sheet 112
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter 114
Appendix E: Levels 1 and 2 115
Appendix F: Blended 116
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 6
Dedication

To my family, for the unwavering support, love, and motivation you gave me through
this process, you have always pushed me to strive for excellence.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 7
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Helena Seli, for your guidance through this
incredible journey. Your encouragement throughout has been instrumental and motivating.
Thank you to my “dream-team” committee members, Dr. Shafiqa Ahmadi and Dr. Denzil
Suite for volunteering your time, providing substantive feedback, and energizing me throughout
the process. Dr. Suite, a special thank you for being part of this journey from step one.
Thank you to all the USC instructors who guided me in this program and those influential
educators that empowered me throughout my educational voyage at Paramount Elementary
School, Foothill Middle School, Gladstone High School, Cal State Fullerton, and Indiana State.
Thank you to my colleagues at USC, especially those who helped create a student-
centered community under the strong leadership of Dr. Michael L. Jackson. You inspired me to
pursue this degree. Thank you to my colleagues in the California Community Colleges system
for your encouragement to finish.
Thank you to my classmates for making this a wonderful experience. Many of you have
become lifelong friends.
Thank you to my fraternity brothers for challenging me to champion a life-long
commitment to learning.
Finally, thank you to my sister Andrea for being an incredible big sister and always being
there when I need you. Thank you to my dad who served in Vietnam and made sacrifices so I
could achieve my dreams. Thank you to my mom for dealing with the burden of making me go
school as a child when I resisted and for always finding the positivity in every situation. This
degree is a result of all of your unconditional love.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 8
List of Tables
Table A. Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment Techniques
Table B. Assumed Motivational Influences and Assessment Techniques
Table C. Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment Techniques
Table D. Summary of Assumed Needs of Faculty Members on Student
Hearing Boards

Table E. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Table F. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Table G. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Table H. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal
Outcomes

Table I. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, and Timing for New Reviewers
Table J. Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Table K. Components of Learning for the Program
Table L. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Table M. Dashboard Monitoring and Accountability Tool

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Faculty and Student Conduct Conceptual Framework
Figure 2. Participants Experience in Teaching Through Years
Figure 3. Gender of Participants
Figure 4. Job Title of Faculty Participants
Figure 5. Participants Overall Viewpoints on Disruptive Behavior
Figure 6. Participants Understanding of Student’s Rights in the Conduct
Process

Figure 7. Participants Responses to Title IX
Figure 8. Male and Female Participant Responses to Addressing Title IX
Figure 9. Male and Female Participant Responses to Familiarity of Title IX
Figure 10. Participant Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and Hearing
Boards

Figure 11. Female Participants Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and
Hearing Boards

Figure 12. Male Participant Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and
Hearing Boards

Figure 13. Time Devoted to Activities by Participants

Figure 14. Participation Perceptions of Being Appreciated

Figure 15. Dashboard Monitoring and Accountability Tool

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 10
Abstract
This study investigated the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that affect
eligible full-time faculty involvement on student conduct hearing boards in a California
Community College. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis operated as the framework for this
study. A sequential explanatory mixed method study was conducted using surveys and semi-
structured interviews. Results indicated that eligible full-time faculty lack the basic fundamental
knowledge of student conduct, have competing responsibilities in their roles and experience a
misalignment between goals of a hearing board and personal and professional values, do not feel
recognized for their current contributions and do not feel supported should retaliation from
students occur. These barriers play a critical role in hindering the ability to educate students on
the academic, social, and ethical matters. The study concludes with recommended solutions
derived from relevant literature and an implementation and evaluation plan that utilized the
evaluative framework found in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Limitations and delimitations are presented as well as recommendations for future
studies.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 11
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Campus conduct offices serve as an instrumental part in completing the organizational
mission of any higher education institution. These offices ensure that that the complexities of
student conduct are upheld and that the institution complies with state and federal laws. The
many components of a judicial process include: identification of an alleged violation and
appropriate referral, due process, confidentiality, investigation of the allegation, interaction
between staff and students in the process, determining policy violations, implementing sanctions,
and being proactive in the prevention of policy violations (Ragle & Paine, 2009). Additionally,
the basic outcomes of a conduct process are to ensure a positive learning experience of the
students, the opportunity to uphold the policies and standards of the institution, and the positive
change of behavior of the student (Ragle & Paine, 2009). However, positive change of behavior
is difficult if the student has a negative perception of sanctions given (King, 2012). When this
occurs, a student may have the right to appeal the original decision made by an adjudicating
officer and be referred to a hearing board that may be comprised of faculty, students and staff.
Hearing boards play a pivotal role in ensuring a student has their due process in a positive
emotional climate (Brackett et al., 2011). However, the lack of participation from faculty
members may severely impact the student conduct process and create a gap in a critically
important part of the institution.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization being studied is a community college located in Southern California.
Like most community colleges, this institution serves the educational needs of its community
members by offering courses that are transferrable to institutions of the California State
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 12
University system and institutions of the University of California system. As the institution’s
website states, most of the courses provided meet the general education requirements that allow
students to transfer to the California State and the University of California systems with a junior
standing. The organization also provides programs and educational courses to students that
directly lead to the workforce through associate degree programs and certificate programs.
Outside of the classroom, the organization offers opportunities for students and
employees to be engaged. Students and employees are able to join one of many committees that
practice the shared governance model described on the organization’s website. Students are also
able to join over 30 clubs that represent a wide variety of interests. The institution’s mission is to
prepare students the opportunity to transfer to four-year universities, to earn applied degrees and
certificates for the workforce, to give students a competitive advantage in the workforce, and to
improve the communities. The institution values diversity, standards, critical thinking skills, and
access to education.
The organization serves approximately 24,000 students per academic year. Sixty-two
percent of the students are Hispanic, 15 percent are White, 14 percent are Black, five percent are
Asian, two percent are other, one percent is Native American, and one percent is Pacific Islander
in 2013-2014. Female students comprise 54.73 percent and male students comprise 45.10 percent
of the student body. Additionally, the organization employs approximately 290 staff members,
160 full-time faculty members, and 350 part-time faculty members across a variety of
departments and academic units. A large population of the students the organization serves live
in poverty. According to Burney and Beilke (2008), poverty is labeled by taking into
consideration a variety of factors including income, education, health, and access to resources. A
family is considered to be in poverty if a family has an income that cannot sufficiently meet the
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 13
size of the family. Yet, the annual salary of a family does not adequately define poverty; other
defining factors can include the length of time someone is in poverty, home ownership,
education, and racial or ethnic groups (Burney & Beilke, 2008). Most California Community
Colleges do not review a student’s poverty level as a factor for student success even though there
is a strong correlation between poverty and achievement (Burney & Beilke, 2008; Sirin, 2005).
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study is the organization’s
ability to educate students on academic, social, and ethical matters through student conduct
hearing boards. The student conduct process is one avenue to assist in educating students on
those factors. Faculty members must participate in the student hearing board process in order to
give students their procedural due process outlined in the policies and procedures of the
organization. Since 2015, five of the approximate 160 full-time faculty members currently
employed have shown interest to serve on the hearing boards.
Related Literature
Higher educational institutions provide students with guidelines on how to act
appropriately while attending educational activities inside and outside the classroom. These
conduct codes, or honor codes, assist students in their successful completion of degrees or
certificates by setting behavioral standards (King, 2012). When these codes are violated,
campuses must use educational means to sanction and ultimately educate students on their
behavior (Bickel & Lake, 1994; Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Therefore, institutions designate offices to
oversee the student conduct process and ensure students are afforded their procedural due
process rights (Ragle & Paine, 2009).
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 14
Campus conduct offices incorporate a variety of accountability philosophies to change or
adjust the behavior of students who have violated a policy or code of conduct. Typically, campus
conduct officers provide holistic education on the student that focuses on the physical, mental
and emotional well-being of the student. There are a variety of philosophies and techniques that
campus conduct officers may use including peer accountability that allows other students to give
appropriate sanctions, and restorative justice which places educational sanctions on a student to
ensure they understand the impact they had on their communities as a result of their decisions
(Derajtys & McDowell, 2014). However, Derajtys and McDowell (2014) stress that institutions
need to balance the effectiveness of their accountability philosophy and the fundamental
procedural due process rights and their privacy.
When a student believes that a decision is too hash or believes that his or her procedural
due process rights were violated, some institutions allow that student to appeal the initial
decision. In some instances, institutions have allowed students to appeal to a student conduct
hearing board comprised of faculty members, students, and other employees. These hearing
boards have the authority to reduce the initial sanction, add to the initial sanction, or to dismiss
the case altogether. Therefore, it is imperative that faculty members who serve on these hearing
boards understand the components of the judicial process and the student rights in their
procedural due process.
Faculty may also want to consider focusing on creating a positive emotional climate
within the hearing itself. A positive emotional climate is the environment an instructor, or
educator, can create that is comprised of a number of characteristics that include: empathy to the
needs of students, a respectful teacher-student relationship, a respect for the student’s
perceptions, and the absence of harsh conduct practices and distrust with authority (Brackett et
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 15
al., 2011). Adjudicating officers, or in this case faculty members who serve on hearing boards,
who focus on creating a positive emotional climate throughout the conduct process may deter
recidivism because of the shared trust (Brackett et al., 2011). In fact, teachers who also focus on
creating a positive emotional climate in a classroom find students to be more engaged in
learning; in contrast, teachers who do not focus on creating a positive emotional climate find
students to misbehave more regularly (Brackett et al., 2011). Although this research is focused
in the K-12 sector, the research of a positive emotional climate can be translated wherever there
is an educator and a student. Students who feel alienated because of their conduct and the
sanctions that follow may feel disconnected and participate in recidivism by portraying behaviors
that may violate additional policies and codes of conduct (Brackett et al., 2011).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Faculty members play an integral part of the student learning process by serving on
hearing boards. However, failure to address the low participation of faculty on hearing boards
can have adverse effects. This may lead to a loss of funding and accreditation because the
institution cannot provide the student their due process rights in a timely manner. If faculty
members do not serve on student conduct hearing boards, have an understanding of the
complexities of student conduct and due process, or understand key concepts for giving
sanctions, recidivism may occur that can be detrimental to student learning (Brackett et al., 2011;
King, 2012). Thus, the organization may not be able to effectively meet its performance goal.
Organizational Performance Goal
One of the organization’s performance goals is to educate students on matters relating to
their academic, social, and ethical frameworks. A student success committee established this
goal after receiving feedback from campus and community stakeholders, including students,
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 16
staff, faculty and community members through a variety of surveys, focus groups and meetings.
This goal was aligned with the mission and values of the organization to serve students and the
community. The feedback received by stakeholders pinpointed the priorities for the campus and
themes were created. This study utilized the goal to educate students on matters relating to their
academic, social, and ethical frameworks through faculty on student conduct hearing boards as
the foundation for this study. The organization’s goal in this area is that by 2018, student conduct
hearing boards will be fully staffed by full-time eligible faculty members 100% of the time.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three stakeholder groups contribute to the achievement of the organizational goal. First,
faculty must see the utility and attainment value to serve on student hearing boards. Second,
students who participate in the conduct process must feel that they are receiving their due
process rights. Third, administrators must assess and evaluate sanctions that are being violated
and the level of recidivism that occurs.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would include all three stakeholders, practical purposes
allowed for one stakeholder group to be included. As participants in this study, full-time faculty
members who do not serve on student conduct hearing boards identified reasons that may deter
them from participating. The study focused on full-time faculty who were currently eligible to
serve on the hearing boards. Full-time faculty members are identified as both non-instructional
and instructional faculty. Both instructional and non-instructional faculty may teach in the
classroom; however, the major responsibilities of non-instructional faculty members are assigned
to work in areas outside of the classroom such as advising and counseling. Additionally, full-
time faculty members are assigned tenure track unless placed on a one-year contract or assigned
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 17
under a categorical program. Tenure is given to tenure-track full-time faculty members after four
years with the institution. Advancement in rank from assistant professor to associate professor
and finally full professor is different for each California community college. Part-time, or
adjunct faculty, may teach at multiple institutions and are only paid and protected by the
institution for teaching inside the classroom. These factors make them currently ineligible to
serve on student conduct hearing boards. By working with full-time faculty as the stakeholder
group, challenges that deter full-time faculty from participating in student hearing boards were
uncovered and factors that encouraged full-time faculty members to serve on student hearing
boards were discovered so that the organization can achieve its goal of hearing boards being
fully staffed 100% of the time by 2018.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
A gap analysis was conducted that examined the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that deter faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards. The
analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering influences and then
examined these systematically to focus on actual or validated interfering influences. While a
complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder
focused on in this analysis is a subset of full-time faculty members.
The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
full-time eligible faculty from participating on student discipline hearing boards?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method that assisted in
clarifying organizational goals and identified the gap between the number of faculty members
who are employed by the organization and the ideal number of faculty members who participate
in student conduct hearing boards to educate students on matters relating to their academic,
social, and ethical frameworks within the organization. This is implemented as the conceptual
framework. The methodological framework is a sequential explanatory mixed method study that
utilized surveys and interviews with descriptive statistics. Assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that interfered with the organizational goal achievement have been
generated based on personal knowledge through professional experience in student conduct and
related literature. Utilization of surveys, focus groups and interviews, a literature review and
content analysis assessed these influences. Research-based solutions have been recommended
and evaluated in a comprehensive approach.
Definitions
Due Process: Derived from the 14
th
amendment that was passed in Congress in 1866 and
ratified by the states in 1868 after the Civil War guaranteed due process of law and equal
protection of the laws. A federal law from the Federal Court of Appeals for the 5
th
Circuit in
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961).
Emotional Climate: A term used to describe empathy to the needs of students, a respectful
teacher-student relationship, a respect for the student’s perceptions, and the absence of harsh
conduct practices and distrust.
FERPA: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act that enforces the confidentially and
appropriate disclosure of student educational records over the age of 18.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 19
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about campus conducts offices
and emotional climate. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial
concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of due process, philosophies, case law, and theory
will be addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed interfering elements as well as
methodology when it comes to choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter
Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on
data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 20
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Chapter two outlines the progression of student conduct literature leading to the evolution
of student conduct hearing boards and the impact faculty members have on the hearing process.
The first section focuses on a historical overview of factors influencing student conduct. The
second section focuses primarily on privacy laws. The chapter ends with an analysis of faculty
involvement on hearing boards from the lens of educational psychology literature utilizing the
gap analysis dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
General Research and Factors Influencing Faculty
on Student Conduct Hearing Boards
Student Conduct
According to Kaplin and Lee (2007), student conduct in the nineteenth and portions of
the twentieth centuries reflected English common law known as ‘in loco parentis.’ This law gave
the faculty and administration of an institution the right to act as a parent with absolute authority
over students. It was not until the civil rights movement and critical case law decisions that
changed the scope of student conduct from custodial to educational (Bickel & Lake, 1994;
Kaplin & Lee, 2007). The evolution of student conduct helped to create policies and codes of
conduct that still allowed for institutions to hold students accountable who violated such policies
or codes, but was done so through an educational judicial process (King 2012). Components of a
judicial process include identification and referral, due process, confidentiality, investigation of
allegation, interaction between staff and students in the process, determining policy violations,
giving sanctions, and being proactive (Ragle & Paine, 2009). However, these codes of conducts
do not supersede constitutional rights afforded to individuals through the 14
th
Amendment once
they enroll in higher education institutions and become students (Bickel & Lake, 1994). Indeed it
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 21
is quite the opposite; the evolution of student conduct has given students more rights as it is
paralleled with the evolution of civil rights beginning after the Civil War (Ellis, 2014).
Due process. Although many of the current due process components for student conduct
were solidified by court decisions, due process is rooted back to the establishment of the 14
th

amendment after the Civil War. Passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868,
the 14
th
Amendment guaranteed that citizens were provided equal protection of the laws and due
process. Tied with the 13
th
Amendment that abolished slavery, the 14
th
Amendment clarified the
meaning of equality, as the term itself was not located within the U.S. Constitution (Ellis, 2014).
Still, racial segregation existed that climaxed to the historic decision in Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) that confirmed that ‘separate but equal’ was a direct violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (Ellis, 2014; Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Additionally, a
landmark decision from the Federal Court of Appeals for the 5
th
Circuit in Dixon v. Alabama
State Board of Education (1961), solidified that due process under the 14
th
amendment included
notice to the student and ultimately ended the ‘in loco parentis’ doctrine with institutions (Kaplin
& Lee, 2007). Two elements were given to students in their due process. The first is that the
student must be notified of the charges. The second is that students be given the opportunity to a
fair and impartial hearing (Ragle & Paine, 2009).
Further court decisions including Goss v. Lopez (1975) and Esteban v. Central Missouri
State College (1967) provided institutions with procedural standards that are currently used;
these include written statement of charges, a hearing before a person with authority,
opportunities to inspect evidence, right to bring an advisor, an opportunity to share their own
side of the incident, right to hear evidence and question witnesses, a determination of
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 22
responsibility based of evidence only, a written statement of the finding, and the ability to record
the hearing (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
Title IX. The Educational Amendment of 1972 again extended rights of students by
focusing on gender based discrimination at federal funded institutions (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
Historically, litigation under Title IX was mainly focused on funding and equal opportunity for
women’s athletics programs until a 2011 ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ by the Office for Civil Rights
obligated institutions to do more. According to the Office for Civil Rights website and Kaplin
And Lee (2007) these obligations include providing stakeholders their nondiscrimination policy,
to designate a Title IX coordinator, required that colleges and universities improve response time
to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases through educating campus communities on reporting
procedures, and required the use of a preponderance of evidence standard for sexual misconduct.
However, in September of 2017, the Office of Civil Rights issued new interim guidance on how
institutions should investigate Title IX claims. According to the Department of Education
website, these interim measures give institutions the option to continue to use a preponderance of
evidence or a clear and convincing standard of proof to find a student responsible for Title IX
violations. Tied with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX is the only statute that allows for
a separate but equal result through gender because of the focus of equity over equality (Kaplin &
Lee, 2007).
Accountability philosophies. The historical evolution of student conduct allowed for
institutions of higher education to use a variety of accountability philosophies to educate through
sanctioning students who violate an institution’s policies and codes of conduct. Holistic
education on the student, peer accountability and restorative justice are varieties of philosophies
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 23
that institutions use as examples of formal, informal, or mixed adjudication techniques (Derajtys,
2014). However, Derajtys (2014) stresses that institutions need to balance the effectiveness of
their accountability philosophy and the fundamental right of students’ procedural due process. In
other words, no accountability philosophy can violate a student’s constitutional rights.
Privacy Laws
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) enforced the confidentially and
appropriate disclosure of student educational records by students and parents. Once the student
attends college or turns the age of 18, the parents no longer has access or control of records.
Some institutions interpret that student conduct proceedings and sanctions cannot be shared with
parents unless in special circumstances (Sells, 2002). Congress also passed the Student Right-to-
Know and Campus Security Act, more famously known as the Jeanne Clery Act. The act would
provide information about criminal activity on and near the campus. Both students and parents
can utilize this data in their decision-making. Additionally, it allows current staff and faculty
attending the institution to make better choices to protect themselves (Sells, 2002).
These privacy laws may limit the ability to share results, also known as sanctions, with
key stakeholders, including campus conduct officers, campus law enforcement, and campus
student counseling services; therefore, communication and trust is necessary (Ragle & Paine,
2009). Depending on the accountability philosophy, the campus conduct officer may understand
more of the context that led to the policy violation than the campus law enforcement agency, or
employee that referred the student. Consequently, sanctions given may be perceived as too
“soft.” Typical sanctions that are consistent among most institutions may include courses to
educate the student on alcohol and drug usage, assessments with student counseling, community
service, reflective assignments, and in some cases notifications to parents (King, 2012).
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 24
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Theoretical Framework
This research study used the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model as its theoretical
framework. The gap analysis model is a systematic and theoretical model that specifies
organizational goals and gaps in performance. Using this framework, the research was able to
identify potential causes and solutions to the gap in organizational performance that was
examined. The study analyzed the assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers
that affected performance as described in the gap analysis model. The perceptions on
performance and motivation of the stakeholder group were examined against these influencers.
This study investigated the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that affect
eligible full-time faculty involvement on student conduct hearing boards. Part of this chapter
reflected a literature review with possible assumed causes further introducing chapter three. The
assumed causes were validated or discounted through the use of surveys, literature review and
research analysis. Conclusions and potential recommendations were explored.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), diagnosing performance gaps start with first
understanding the three main causes of these gaps. These causes described include the
stakeholder’s knowledge and skills, their motivation to actually achieve their performance goal,
and the organizational barriers that may exists that prevent them from achieving said goal.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), identifying these three causes can effectively allow
organizational leaders to assess gaps and facilitate the most appropriate performance
improvement plan. Knowledge and skills consider specific knowledge types while motivation
and organizational barriers apply specific theories relevant to types of motivational and
organizational factors.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 25
Faculty Members’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Faculty Knowledge and Skills
In order to adequately understand the holistic examination and the varying components
that are involved with student conduct hearing boards, it is important to review the relevant
literature focusing on faculty members who serve on student conduct boards and thus conflict.
Because the organizational goal is to increase the number of faculty members who serve on
student conduct boards, the literature examined looked at knowledge factors that assisted in
achieving this goal.
Knowledge influences. The literature examined is pertinent to understanding what
information was necessary to increase the number of faculty members who serve on student
conduct hearing boards. Thus, it was important to review the differences in knowledge types.
Both Rueda (2011) and Mayer (2011) categorize knowledge into four knowledge types.
Although Mayer (2011) expands the fourth dimension of knowledge, metacognitive, into two
categories, this review of literature defined knowledge types into the four distinct areas.
The first is factual knowledge that encompasses the basic facts of a subject that can
include jargon, basic context, and information that can be viewed as foundational. The second is
conceptual knowledge that includes the theoretical foundations and principles about the subject.
The third is procedural knowledge that includes the ability to apply conceptual knowledge and
perform the techniques and practices necessary to complete tasks. The fourth and final
knowledge type is metacognitive that includes the awareness of the individual’s beliefs, learning
and understanding of an individual’s own actions (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011).
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 26
In reviewing the literature, each knowledge influence was categorized into one of the four
knowledge types discussed above in order to appropriately evaluate and assess the needs of the
stakeholder group.
Faculty knowledge of the importance of hearing boards. Campus conduct offices
incorporate a variety of accountability philosophies to change the behavior of students who have
violated a policy or code of conduct, including hearing boards (Derajtys & McDowell, 2014;
Jacobson, 2013). There are a variety of philosophies that institutions use for adjudication
techniques. Many of these focus on the holistic education of the student that includes the
physical, mental and emotional well-being of the student. Examples include peer accountability
that allows other students to give appropriate sanctions, and restorative justice that places
educational sanctions on a student to ensure they understand the impact they had on their
communities as a result of their decisions (Derajtys & McDowell, 2014). However Derajtys and
McDowell (2014) stress that institutions need to balance the effectiveness of their accountability
philosophy and the fundamental right of a student’s due process and privacy (Derajtys &
McDowell, 2014). It is essential that faculty at the organization of study understand this balance
and must understand the accountability philosophy used by the institution.
Since colleges and universities have a deep history of self-governance, beginning with
the early literary societies and evolving over time into clubs and organizations on college
campuses, students have always had an opportunity to create codes of conduct or honor codes for
their own organizations and hold members accountable (May, 2010). However, the need to
formalize accountability processes through the institution from case law and protections afforded
by the 14
th
amendment led to the development of campus conduct offices and with it policies and
codes of conduct (Kaplin & Lee, 2007; King, 2012; May, 2010). Faculty members who
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 27
understand this historical context may appreciate the process and support the institution’s goal as
it relates to student conduct.
Institutional policies and codes of conduct create standards for institutions to hold
students accountable who violate such policies or codes (King, 2012). Therefore, it is essential
that faculty members who serve on student hearing boards have the knowledge of the codes,
polices and the historic reasoning for them. Additionally, these codes and policies should inform
students of their procedural due process rights. The many components of a judicial process
include: the written statement of charges, a hearing before a person with authority, opportunities
to inspect evidence, right to bring an advisor, an opportunity to share their own side of the
incident, right to hear evidence and question witnesses, a determination of responsibility based of
evidence only, a written statement of the finding, and the ability to record the hearing (Kaplin &
Lee, 2007). These components allow colleges and universities to be consistent in their judicial
process and allow for the transparency of such process with their students. Without the
knowledge of these judicial components, faculty members may violate a student’s rights and
leave the institution open for legal ramifications.
The development of student codes of conduct and the components of a judicial process
showcases the importance of hearing boards. As key stakeholders, it is essential that faculty
members understand how this important topic is tied directly into the mission of the college and
thus in their classroom. As agents of the college and advocates of students, faculty members may
increase their involvement in student conduct hearing boards once they gain the foundational
knowledge of the importance of these boards.
Faculty knowledge of students’ due process rights. Student conduct codes and policies
also give students an outline of due process that is required by law. This requirement was
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 28
identified by the 14
th
Amendment, clarified by a decision from the Federal Court of Appeals for
the 5
th
Circuit in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) and has since evolved
through other case law (Bickel & Lake, 1994; Kaplin & Lee, 2007; Stimpson & Janosik, 2015;
Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012). These rights include written statement of charges, a hearing before
a person with authority, opportunities to inspect evidence, right to bring an advisor, an
opportunity to share their own side of the incident, right to hear evidence and question witnesses,
a determination of responsibility based of evidence only, a written statement of the finding, and
the ability to record the hearing (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Codes of conduct and the due process of
accountability are important because they give students their right to an objective proceeding
(King, 2012).
Once proceedings are completed, the hearing board may have the ability to refer a
student, as a sanction, to an internal or external agency that can better address the behavior. The
literature reviewed illustrates that the student’s perception of trust and fairness in the referral
process is deeply affected by whom or to whom the student is referred (Ahern, 2009; Jacobson,
2015; King, 2012). If a student is dealing with mental health or any health-related aspects, health
professionals may be more effective to correct behavior as they are seen as more credible to
students; additionally, a referral by campus police officers may be detrimental if the perception
of legitimacy is low (Ahern, 2009; Jacobson, 2015). Faculty members must be knowledgeable
about the most effective individuals to refer students to in order to ensure a fair perception of a
student’s due process and create a positive emotional climate.
Faculty knowledge about creating a positive emotional climate. Literature suggests that
reflective educators are able to adapt and recognize challenges and inconsistencies to not only
curriculum but also student learning and behavior (Ferry & Gordon, 1998; Wilson, 2008). This
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 29
reflective skill is an important aspect in creating a positive emotional climate that may increase
the level of engagement with students and their peers. By doing so, faculty members may be
more actively engaged in accomplishing the organizational goal. Faculty members need to self-
assess their own engagement in creating a positive emotional climate during the student conduct
process.
As stated earlier, a positive emotional climate is comprised of a number of characteristics
that include: empathy to the needs of students, a respectful teacher-student relationship, a respect
for the student’s perceptions, and the absence of harsh conduct practices and distrust (Brackett et
al., 2011). Faculty are also affected by their own emotions while teaching in the classroom and
when referring students (Bracket et.al, 2011; Hedman, 2012). However, to assist faculty
members in providing the proper support to students, self-reflection techniques are important
(Ferry & Gordon, 1998; Wilson, 2008). According to Ferry and Gordon (1998), reflecting-in-
action and reflection-on-action are critical to ensure that faculty members learn and develop in
order to master their roles and responsibilities.
Educators who focus on creating a positive emotional climate in conduct may deter
recidivism (Brackett et al., 2011). The same may be true for faculty members who serve on
student conduct hearing boards. A positive emotional climate is comprised of a number of
characteristics that include: empathy to the needs of students, a respectful teacher-student
relationship, a respect for the student’s perceptions, and the absence of harsh conduct practices
and distrust (Brackett et al., 2011). Literature shows that faculty who focus on creating a
positive emotional climate in a classroom find students to be more engaged in learning; in
contrast, teachers who do not focus on creating a positive emotional climate find students to
misbehave more regularly (Brackett et al., 2011). In other words, the importance of ensuring a
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 30
positive emotional climate is also important during a conduct hearing board. Faculty members
must reflect on their actions that may deter and assist in creating such a climate. This will
promote the opportunity and ability to educate students who participate in student conduct
hearing boards on academic, social and ethical matters.
Table A
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment Techniques
Organizational Mission
The mission of the organization is prepare students the opportunity to transfer to four-
year universities, to earn applied degrees and certificates for the workforce, to give
students a competitive advantage in the workforce, and to improve the communities.

Organizational Global Goal
To educate students on matters relating to their academic, social, and ethical frameworks
through eligible full-time faculty serving on student conduct hearing boards.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, hearing boards will be 100 percent full.
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Faculty members need to
understand the importance of
hearing boards.
Conceptual
Faculty members responded to
an interview question about
how hearing boards are
connected to the mission of the
college.
Faculty members need to know
that students have due process
rights and what those rights are.
Conceptual
Faculty members
identified/listed the key
elements of due process.
Faculty members need to self-
assess their own engagement in
creating a positive emotional
climate during the student
conduct process.
Metacognitive
Faculty members were
interviewed and asked to
define and how they create a
positive emotional climate in
their classroom.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 31
Faculty Motivation
Much like knowledge, it was also important to review the relevant literature about
motivation focusing on faculty members who are eligible to serve on student conduct boards.
The literature examined in this section included motivational factors that may assist in achieving
the stakeholder goal to increase the number of faculty members who serve on student conduct
boards. Rueda (2011) offers a summary of the motivational literature by self-efficacy, attribution
theory, interest and value. Although there is disagreement about clear definitions of motivation,
motivation is important because it allows the individual to actively choose to begin a task and to
persist in it (Rueda, 2011). In this section, literature about expectancy value theory is discussed.
Expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006) explains the
importance and process of how an individual first decides if they want to start a task. Once the
task has started, an individual then begins to evaluate if they have the ability to complete it. An
individual’s expectations for success and the value they assign to the task at hand are critical
factors in predicting active choice, persistence, and the amount mental effort given to the task.
Faculty attainment value. Within expectancy value theory, attainment value describes
how a specific task is aligned with an individual’s self-identity including their current
professional role, values and beliefs (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). According to Rueda (2011),
the individual’s perception of whether the task supports or conflicts with their current role and
their personal beliefs is very important. Depending on the organizational structure of each
institution, faculty members may have the opportunity to volunteer on a variety of committees
and serve as advisors for clubs and organizations. Faculty members may have to decide about the
professional and personal value of volunteering for any of the various opportunities (Rueda,
2011). Because of the complex matters relating to student conduct, including hearing boards,
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 32
faculty may not see the attainment value at first glance (Stimpson & Janosik, 2015; Stotzer &
Hossellman, 2012; King, 2012; Ragle & Paine, 2009). However, understanding the historical
context and mastering the complex information related to student conduct may assist faculty
members in deciding whether the goals of student conduct hearing boards are aligned with their
values as an educator.
Faculty cost value. Within the expectancy value theory, cost value describes how the
time and resources a specific task takes must be weighed against other tasks (Eccles, 2006;
Rueda, 2011). Time and mental effort may be factors to consider when making decisions (Rueda,
2011). Much like attainment value, faculty may view the complexities of student conduct as too
much of a mental effort to actively choose to participate (Stimpson & Janosik, 2015; Stotzer &
Hossellman, 2012; King, 2012; Ragle & Paine, 2009). However, mastering the basic foundations
of student conduct will lessen the amount of perceived mental effort needed. Additionally,
faculty members need to understand the time commitments of serving on student conduct
hearing boards. This will give faculty members information necessary to actively choose to
participate over other activities and responsibilities.
Faculty utility value. Within expectancy value theory, utility value describes how an
individual perceives a task to be useful in their pursuit of future personal or professional goals
(Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). According to Rueda (2011), the individual’s perception of the
usefulness of the task may be a factor in choosing to start the task. Faculty may question the
usefulness of how serving on a student conduct board will help their career goals and perhaps
their classroom instruction. However, serving on activities outside of the classroom is an
important indicator of faculty engagement in the community and may assist in professional
promotions. Additionally, serving on student conduct hearing boards may increase civility in the
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 33
classroom and deepen the teacher-student relationship if a faculty member is more involved in
campus activities and practices that involve students (Chory & Offstein, 2016; Frey Knepp,
2012).

Table B
Assumed Motivational Influences and Assessment Techniques

Faculty Organizational Influences
In addition to the knowledge and motivational influences regarding faculty serving on
student conduct hearing boards, organizational aspects within the institution may also have a
strong influence on the organizational goal being met. Although knowledge and motivational
barriers can prevent stakeholders from meeting goals, Clark and Estes (2008) state that cultural
Organizational Mission
The mission of the organization is prepare students the opportunity to transfer to four-year
universities, to earn applied degrees and certificates for the workforce, to give students a
competitive advantage in the workforce, and to improve the communities.

Organizational Global Goal
To educate students on matters relating to their academic, social, and ethical frameworks through
eligible full-time faculty serving on student conduct hearing boards.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, hearing boards will be 100 percent full.
Assumed Motivation Influences
(Choose 2)
Motivational Influence Assessment

Faculty members may view the cost of
participating in the student conduct process as too
high given that it takes time away from other
tasks.

Faculty members were given open-ended
interview questions about their current time
demands and their perception of how much
time serving on a hearing board would cost
them and identified other responsibilities
through a survey.
Faculty members may not see participating on
hearing boards as an important aspect of their
jobs as educators.
Faculty members were given a Likert
survey to assess attainment value of student
conduct.
Faculty members may not see participating on
hearing boards as an important factor in their
professional development.
Faculty members were given a Likert survey
to assess utility value of serving on student
conduct hearing boards.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 34
settings and models can also influence the successful completion of organizational goals. The
same can be applied to the institution in this study and student conduct hearing boards. The
following organizational influences are additional barriers to the knowledge and motivational
factors that deter faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards.
Conflict in the classroom. Faculty members are charged with creating a positive
emotional climate within the classroom to increase student learning (Brackett et al., 2011). As
stated previously, a focus on the emotional climate in a classroom will increase student
engagement in the learning process by focusing on relationships rather than process. Should
faculty choose to serve on a student conduct hearing board, they would be responsible in
recommending and enacting sanctions on students who have violated the student code of
conduct. Per students’ FERPA rights, the evidence or facts utilized in making the decision must
be held in confidence from those who were not involved in the process. However, a student’s due
process rights does not stop the student from sharing with peers the processes and outcome. This
places the institution and the faculty that serve on that student conduct hearing boards open to
criticism, whether that criticism be constructive or invalid, without the opportunity to respond
and correct any inconsistent information.
Additionally, students may choose to disclose the identities of the faculty members
serving on the student conduct boards to their peers. The lack of anonymity may cause faculty
members to be resistant to serve on those boards as negative perceptions may hinder and cripple
a faculty member’s ability to create a positive emotional climate in the classroom through
retaliation. As stated earlier in the motivational section, the cost value may not be worth serving
on a student conduct hearing board. Faculty members, who may want to serve on a student
conduct hearing board, may not feel supported by the organization because of the organization’s
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 35
inability to correct any inconsistent information out of student conduct and retaliation from the
student.
Recognition of faculty members. It is also important to look at the role that rewards and
recognition play in an organizational context with faculty members. To be clear, there are a
number of categorical and effective ways to recognize and reward employees who move the
organization forward, but there is also a healthy balance that must be struck (Hansen, Smith and
Hansen, 2002; Reilly, 2004). Ensuring that rewards are not given to recognize the completion of
trivial tasks and recognizing that rewards may be perceived differently may ensure that
individuals who are recognized will take such recognition as empowering and motivating. The
factors involved in recognition and rewards are important aspects that each organization may
want to explore recognition practices.
Faculty members may not be recognized for their service appropriately. The organization
in this study recognizes two full-time faculty members on an annual basis for their service;
however, the majority of faculty members are left without any recognition for their daily service
in the classroom and any service on committees. Without this recognition, the organization may
be missing an opportunity to recruit faculty to serve on student conduct hearing boards. Faculty
may not see value in serving in other areas if they do not feel valued serving in their current
areas. This motivational challenge may be a result from the currently weak recognition and
reward system throughout the organizational culture.
Responsibilities for full time faculty. Within the organization, full time faculty
members are given the opportunity to select from a number of participatory governance
committees; however, they are required to serve on at least one of those committees. These
committees represent the shared governance philosophy of the organization and the California
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 36
Community College system that allows stakeholders to participate in decision-making of the
college. Stakeholders serving on participatory governance committees include faculty,
administrators, classified staff, and students.
The student conduct hearing board is not a shared governance committee that faculty can
select as a service commitment. Faculty, who are already required to commit to a shared
governance committee, may not be welcoming to another responsibility that will add time to
their already busy schedules. Although this may be a cost value motivational factor, this is also
an organizational challenge because serving on a student conduct hearing board does not qualify
as fulfilling the responsibility of serving on a shared governance committee. The organization
has not yet determined that serving on a student conduct hearing board is as valuable as a shared
governance committee.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 37
Table C
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment Techniques

Conclusion
The assumed influences of knowledge, motivational, and organizational problems that
may lead to the performance gap of educating students on matters relating to their academic,
social, and ethical frameworks through hearing boards are highlighted through theory and related
literature. These assumed influences have been measured through interviewing faculty members
as well as gaining descriptive statistics by surveying faculty members. The collected data from
both interviews and surveys have been used to confirm the root causes of the performance
Organizational Mission
The mission of the organization is prepare students the opportunity to transfer to four-year
universities, to earn applied degrees and certificates for the workforce, to give students a
competitive advantage in the workforce, and to improve the communities.

Organizational Global Goal
To educate students on matters relating to their academic, social, and ethical frameworks
through eligible full-time faculty serving on student conduct hearing boards.

Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By June 2018, hearing boards will be 100% full.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: Faculty members
may not feel supported by the organization
should retaliation occur from serving on a
hearing board.

Survey and interview questions asked faculty
about their level of comfort in dealing with
potential conflict arising from service on
student hearing boards.
Cultural Model Influence 2: There is a culture
of not appreciating faculty members who
serve on various committees.

Survey and interview questions asked faculty
if they feel appreciated on serving in roles
outside of their teaching responsibilities.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Faculty are
overwhelmed with their teaching
responsibilities and cannot serve in other
activities.

Survey and interview questions about their
daily routines and feelings about being
overwhelmed.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 38
problem. Furthermore, the information and insights acquired from these methods were used to
provide a holistic understanding of the problem and evidence based potential solutions.
Table D
Summary of Assumed Needs of Faculty Members on Student Hearing Boards
Assumed Needs of
Faculty Members
General Literature
Knowledge
Faculty members need to
understand the
importance of hearing
boards.

(Derajtys & McDowell,
2014; King, 2012; May
2012; Ragel & Paine,
2009)

Faculty members need to
know that students have
due process rights.
(Bickel & Lake, 1994;
Ellis, 2014; Kaplan & Lee,
2007; King, 2012; Ragle
& Paine, 2009; Stimpson
& Janosik, 2015; Stotzer
& Hossellman, 2012)

Faculty members need to
know how to refer a
student.
(Ahern, 2009; Hedman,
2012; Jacobson, 2015;
King, 2012; Ragle &
Paine, 2009)

Faculty members need to
self-assess their own
engagement in creating a
positive emotional
climate during the
student conduct process.
(Bracket, et al., 2011;
Ferry & Gordon, 1998;
Wilson, 2008)

Motivation

Faculty members must
internally value,
understand, and
implement student
conduct policies and
procedures.
(Chory & Offstein; Frey
Knepp, 2012; King, 2012;
Ragel & Paine, 2009;
Stimpson & Janosik,
2015; Stotzer &
Hossellman, 2012)

Organizational Culture

The organization may
not be able to deter
(Bracket, et al., 2011)

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 39
retaliation from a student
that may cripple a
faculty member’s ability
to create a positive
emotional climate in the
classroom.

The organization may
not adequately recognize
faculty for serving in
current roles.

(Hansen, Smith, and
Hansen, 2002; Reilly,
2004)

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Members’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework, or theoretical framework to some, includes the framework, the
scaffolding, the lenses of the researcher through personal experiences, and the questions in which
this study uses in an attempt to answer the research questions. Moreover, this conceptual
framework includes the beliefs, concepts, theories, models and jargon being utilized in this study
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although each potential influencer in theory and in
application was discussed earlier, these influencers are not independent or work in isolation.
Quite contrary, these influences form a symbiotic relationship. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
prefer that a theoretical framework consist of broader topics of theory because all studies are
designed with a theoretical orientation. However, Maxwell (2013) describes a conceptual
framework as a visual creation that explains the key aspects of the study. Nonetheless, both agree
that the conceptual framework in an integral part of qualitative research and will assist in
explaining the interaction between influencers and how they may provide answers to the research
question of this study.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 40

Figure 1. Faculty and Student Conduct Conceptual Framework
The stakeholders in this study are full-time faculty members. As the figure shows, full-
time faculty members in the organization are required to serve on at least one of the shared
governance committees, also known as participatory, or shared, governance committees outlined
on their website. As illustrated, student conduct hearing boards are not part of the participatory
governance committees that faculty can select. This highlights an organizational influence that
ARTS LECTURE & DIVERSITY
Budget
Professional Development
Facilities and Safety
Student Learning Outcomes
Technology
Program Review
SHARED GOVERNANCE
CONDUCT BOARDS
CLASSROOM
INSTRUCTION
E M O T I O N A L
C L I M A T E
NOT A COMMITTEE
STUDENT
CONDUCT CODE
VIOLATION
REFERRAL PROCESS
DUE PROCESS
STUDENT CONDUCT PROCEDURES
VALUE TO LEARN
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 41
may deter faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards (King, 2012; Ragle & Paine,
2009; Stimpson & Janosik, 2015; Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012).
Additionally, literature suggests that faculty inside the classroom should develop a
positive emotional climate in order to foster trust with students (Brackett et al., 2011). A positive
emotional climate must also be present during the student conduct hearing board process (King,
2012). However, it is essential that faculty reflect on the perception of a positive emotional
climate while also recognizing that the same student going through the student conduct hearing
may also end up in their classroom at a later date. This may be a challenge in creating a positive
emotional climate. Further knowledge influences include the complexities of student conduct,
the importance of conduct hearing boards, the due process rights afforded to students, and the
ability for faculty to refer students appropriately who may violate the student code of conduct.
These knowledge factors are essential to understand in order to serve on a student conduct
hearing board (Ragle & Paine, 2009). This is also tied directly to the motivational influence.
The responsibilities of full-time faculty, including curriculum building, testing, grading
and serving on committees, are time consuming. The cost of learning the essential knowledge to
serve on a student conduct hearing board may be a burden to faculty members. In addition,
because the student conduct hearing board is not a participatory governance committee, serving
on the board may not fulfill the responsibilities of faculty. The time commitment and mental
effort needed to learn may not be perceived as valuable to faculty (Eccles, 2006; Rueda,
2011).The figure illustrates the connection between each of the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that may deter faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards.
This conceptual framework summarizes the important aspects that have been addressed in
previous sections and will assist the reader throughout the rest of the research.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 42
Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis that examined the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that deter faculty from serving on student conduct
hearing boards. The lack of participation from faculty members may severely impact the basic
responsibilities of the student conduct process and create a gap in an instrumental part of the
institution. In this chapter, the research design and the methods for data collection and analysis
are presented. In addition, criteria in selecting and recruiting full-time faculty as the participating
stakeholders are identified. Validity, reliability, credibility and trustworthiness are examined as
well as the important ethical decisions made through this study. Finally, limitations and
delimitations are addressed.
As a reminder, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
full-time eligible faculty from participating on student discipline hearing boards?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus is full-time faculty. Full-time faculty members
studied where those who have served on shared governance committees within the institution. It
was important to study full-faculty members who were knowledgeable about the shared
governance committee structure within the organization and time commitments associated with
the shared governance structure in relation to their other responsibilities. Additionally,
participants had varying degrees of knowledge and experience regarding student conduct hearing
boards. Many of the participants had leadership roles in areas outside of the classroom through
committees and departments.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 43
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Full-time faculty members who currently served on shared governance
committees were an important stakeholder sub-population. Their experience working on shared
governance committees produced rich data that would not be gathered from full-time faculty
members who did not understand the culture of the organization. Although serving on these
committees is a requirement, the varying leadership roles and engagement in these committees
varied.
Survey Sample, (Recruitment) Strategy, and Rationale
The recruitment strategy utilized for this survey was a representative sampling technique
(Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2013). This survey pursued total sampling size participation because
each faculty member may have a differing viewpoint depending on the shared governance
committee they serve on ad their level of engagement in those committees. This survey was
given before interviews through a sequential explanatory study. This type of study allowed for a
deeper understanding of the population through quantitative means that assisted in the
interviews. As Fink (2013) states, no survey response is considered standard; however, a 13
percent completion rate was achieved. Participation in this study did not require both a survey
and an interview.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Full-time faculty members who were currently serving on student conduct
hearing boards were identified and asked to participate in one on one interviews. These
interviews allowed the researcher to gain an in-depth understanding why faculty chose to serve
on a student conduct hearing board.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 44
Criterion 2. Full-time faculty members who vocally shared interest in serving on student
conduct hearing boards were also interviewed. Their participation developed a greater
understanding of why they were interested in serving on student conduct hearing boards.
Criterion 3. Full-time faculty members who served as a club advisor were interviewed to
gain a better understanding of how they balanced advising and teaching students. Interviewing
these faculty members allowed for a better understanding of how they created the positive
emotional climate inside and outside of their classroom. Additionally, their experience on how
they managed time was critical for this study.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling recruitment strategy used was a convenience sampling strategy because the
club advisor information was already available online (Maxwell, 2013). Moreover, the researcher
had the contact information of faculty members who have served and who have stated they were
currently interested in serving on student conduct hearing boards. The survey prior to the
interview asked the participant if they were interested in being interviewed. The interview
process ceased once information becomes redundant, or saturated (Merriman & Tisdell, 2016).
Through this sequential explanatory study, the interview process was critical to gain a greater
understanding of the survey data and produce data about the organization (Krueger & Casey,
2009).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The methodological framework used in this study was a sequential explanatory mixed
method study. Assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that interfere
with the ability for faculty to increase the ability to educate students on academic, social, and
ethical matters through student discipline hearing boards were generated based on personal
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 45
knowledge through professional experience in student conduct and related literature. This study
utilized surveys and interviews. An analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data examined the
influences. Solutions based on this research were recommended with an evaluative tool. Surveys
were utilized to collect quantitative information from full-time faculty. After the survey data was
collected, interviews were used to gain a deeper understanding of organizational elements.
Surveys
The population selected was full-time faculty members and the sampling design was
single-stage (Creswell, 2008). Before administering the survey, an information sheet was given
to each participant stating the purpose of the study, the participant involvement describing their
agreement to participate, any compensation for taking the survey, alternatives to participating,
and confidentiality in survey responses describing what will happen with the survey information
and how long survey results will be kept. The survey utilized the Qualtrics software and was
administered online. Each survey took no more than ten minutes to complete including all
participant involvement descriptions. Twenty-one full-time faculty members participated in the
survey. The survey examined concepts including participants’ knowledge of student due process,
participant’s feelings on shared governance, and participant’s perception of being appreciated.
The survey was administered prior to the interview.
The validity and reliability of these survey items were ensured through triangulation
methods with interviews (Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each
participant was able to review interview transcripts and offer clarification on statements if
needed. None of the participants elected to request edits to their interview transcripts unless an
answer or comment could potentially identify them as a participant. These strategies increased
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 46
the likelihood that this study adequately measured the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences.
Interviews
All 21 full-faculty members who participated in the study were asked to participate in the
interview process once the surveys were completed. Eight participants accepted the opportunity
and were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. The semi-structured approach was
important because it allowed for a more authentic conversation style interview, but also utilized
an interview guide with pre-determined questions (Merriman & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994).
The pre-determined questions focused on experiences and behaviors, opinions and values,
knowledge, feelings and emotions, and sensory descriptions of the participant (Patton, 2002).
Additionally, these questions were directly tied to the literature used in the creation of the
conceptual framework. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each with the
opportunity to follow-up with a second interview. No participant was interviewed a second time.
These interviews were conducted on the college campus for easier accommodations for the
participant, and were in a neutral location with low-risk of interruption.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results were submitted. For
interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Analytic memos were written after each
interview that included thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation to
the conceptual framework and research questions. Interviews were transcribed and coded. In the
first phase of analysis, open coding was used to look for empirical codes and priori codes were
applied from the conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where
empirical and a prior codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 47
analysis pattern codes were identified and themes emerged in relation to the conceptual
framework and research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

This study is a mixed-method study and used both qualitative and quantitative methods.
The credibility and trustworthiness of the research and the researcher is important to show that
the results are valid and that researcher bias has been controlled. Therefore, to keep the integrity
of credibility and trustworthiness, multiple methods of collecting data were used. Additionally,
there were a variety of strategies to deter risks to credibility and trustworthiness of the study
including triangulation, the use of diverse participants and multiple data collection techniques
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Another strategy used to ensure a high level of
credibility and trustworthiness was with the participants themselves. The use of interviews was
an essential component of this study. The strategy of member checking, or respondent validation,
which verified the transcriptions of each interviewee, was critical to not only build credibility for
this study, but increased the trust and ethical consideration with the participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, triangulation through member checking and surveys allowed for
saturation of the data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
The survey section of this study provides a quantitative approach. As Creswell (2008)
states, there are a number of validity and reliability threats that must be deterred. However,
Creswell (2008) focuses many of his strategies to deter threats in quantitative studies. One
specific threat that needed to be deterred in this study was the testing effect that may have
increased the knowledge of participants between the survey and interview. As a result of taking
the survey, faculty members could have become interested in educating themselves on student
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 48
conduct processes and would therefore have increased knowledge on the topic. This may be
evident in the interviews that occurred post-surveys. Additionally, researcher bias is always
present and Creswell (2008) recommends that the bias be articulated in the ethics section of this
study. Moreover, it is important to understand that this study should not be generalized to other
entities because of the specific characterizations that the participants hold (Creswell, 2008).
Ethics
The trustworthiness of a researcher is an essential component to ensure that reliable and
valid information is gathered (Merriman & Tisdell, 2016). However, in qualitative studies, the
type of relationship between the researcher and participants can greatly call into question the
ethics of the researcher. The researcher ensured that each participant understood their rights and
protected the participants from any harm (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This study ensured that
participants understood their rights through informed consent and a strong level of transparency
(Glesne, 2011). Each participant was given a thorough explanation that this study is looking at
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may deter faculty from serving on
student conduct hearing boards. Additionally, each participant was given an information sheet
describing that each survey would take no more than ten minutes and each interview would take
no more than 30 minutes (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Participants were reminded that all
participation is voluntary and that they could choose to end their participation at any time. Each
participant was also told that the interview would be recorded and the only alternative to not
being recorded was to not participate. In order to ensure that there was no stress associated with
the interview process, the researcher ensured that each participant understood that choosing not
to participate would not have any repercussions from the employer, person, or entity related to
the institution (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The digital recordings were transcribed by a professional
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 49
third party transcriber and kept until the researched triple-checked the recordings.
The transcriptions will be kept for at least five years in the event this study is presented
upon or published. Only the researcher, the professional transcriber, and faculty from the
University of Southern California were allowed to access the data. Faculty from the University
of Southern California could access for educational advice. However, members of the USC
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) could also access data to ensure participants’ rights
were being given adequately and that their welfare was intact. Furthermore, each participant’s
identity was shielded and disguised through the transcription process; however, each participant
was able to review their own transcription to ensure accuracy and had the ability to edit out any
information they believed would identify them for privacy (Glesne, 2011).
The researcher was highly interested in the results of this study and was eager to
implement strategies to fill the gaps found in this study. To ensure privacy and to add a level of
objectivity, the interviews were conducted in a neutral place approved by the participant. The
researcher reiterated to the participants that the goal was to collect data and analyze, not to
ensure that policies, procedures, and laws were being followed. Additionally, the researcher
works with faculty members in his professional role, and is a first generation college student
which brings a high degree of empathy to faculty and students who may find their classroom
experience challenging. Those factors may have created a bias to objectively gather and analyze
data. However, the researcher bias-checked any thoughts by utilizing follow-up questions to
adequately listen to and gather the true meaning of what was being said. Furthermore, the
researcher strived for objectivity especially when interviewing faculty members who identified
as club advisors by listening to their statements without deciding if their responses were credible
based off of previous information. This study used the recommendation from Glesne (2011) by
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 50
making journal entries with daily reflections throughout the study in order to keep biases
documented and begin analysis. This process also provided opportunity for personal growth as a
reflective researcher (Ferry & Ross-Gordon, 1998).
Limitations and Delimitations
Each study has its own unique set of challenges and limitations (Creswell, 2008;
Maxwell, 2013). According to Creswell (2008) and Maxwell (2013), the researcher has some
ability to control the study while some areas are outside of the researcher’s control. The
following section provides the limitation sand delimitations of the study.
One limitation was the use of the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework
selected in this study is Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model. This gap analysis model was
required in this doctorate study by the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. Other gap analysis models may have produced additional and different data, but this
study was limited to the knowledge, motivational, and organizational framework used. The
questions designed for the survey and interview portions of this study were also developed based
off of the gap analysis model.
The second limitation was that survey questions were developed in anticipation that the
interviews in this sequential explanatory study would add to the richness of data collection.
Survey questions could have included more items, but were limited to assist in participation rates
(Creswell, 2008). Survey questions were created to gain an understanding of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences but were not intended to gain as rich of data as
interviews. Another limitation was that surveys were sent to full-time faculty members during
the end of an academic year, which may have influenced and deterred participation rates. Survey
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 51
participants were not required to participate in the interview portion and therefore not all
participants took the opportunity to explain their survey choices.
Another set of limitations included areas outside of the researcher’s control. The
researcher could not anticipate the level of truthfulness of respondents during both the surveys
and interviews. Additionally, interview participants may have studied the subject of study after
the survey, which could alter their knowledge. Finally, participants who chose to be interviewed
may have felt obligated to participate because of their professional working relationship with the
researcher.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that deter faculty from serving on student conduct
hearing boards. The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering
influences and then examined these systematically to focus on actual or validated interfering
influences. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes
the stakeholder focused on in this analysis is a subset of full-time faculty members.
The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that interfere with
full-time eligible faculty from participating on student discipline hearing boards?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
The methodological framework used in this study is a sequential explanatory mixed
method study that utilized surveys and interviews. The recruitment strategy utilized for this
survey was a representative sampling technique (Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2013). This survey
pursued total sampling size participation because each faculty member may have a differing
viewpoint depending on the shared governance committee they serve on. The survey took place
before interviews through this mixed method study. This type of study allowed for a deeper
understanding of the population through quantitative means that assisted in the interviews. As
Fink (2013) states, no survey response is considered standard; however, participation in this
study did not require both a survey and an interview.
Assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that interfere with the
ability for full-time eligible faculty to increase the ability to educate students on academic,
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 53
social, and ethical matters through student discipline hearing boards were generated based on
personal knowledge through professional experience in student conduct and related literature.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus was full-time faculty members. Surveys were
distributed to all 160 full-time faculty members through email and by using Qualtrics software.
Twenty-one full-time faculty members participated in completing the survey and represented
each of the educational divisions within the organization. Participants ranged in teaching
experience, experience in shared governance committees, and experience advising clubs. After
surveys were completed, eight full-time faculty members agreed to participate in 30-minute
interviews. These interviews were conducted in person and online and the participants again
represented a variety of the educational divisions within the organization. All semi-structured
interviews were conducted in a neutral place approved by the participant.

34%
14%
14%
24%
14%
Par$cipants' Years Teaching
1-5 Years
6-10 Years
11-15 Years
16-20 Years
20 or more years
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 54
Figure 2. Particpants’ Experience in Teaching (In Years)

Figure 3. Participants’ Gender

6
15
Number of Par8cipants
Par$cipants' Gender
Male
Female
14
7
Numer of Par8cipants
Par$cipants' Faculty Title
Instruc8onal Faculty
Non-Instruc8onal Faculty
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 55
Figure 4. Participants’ Faculty Title
Results
Knowledge Results
Full-time faculty members need to create a positive emotional climate in their classroom
to fully engage their students on the subject matter being taught (Brackett et al., 2011).
Participants in this study were asked to identify behaviors that they believed to be disruptive and
could therefore create challenges to creating a positive emotional climate. Overall, data shows
that participants collectively identified “talking on the phone” as very disruptive. However, data
also shows a split between very disruptive and not disruptive on items of “sleeping,” “coming in
late,” and “texting.” Additionally, a majority of participants identified “eating” as not disruptive
and somewhat disruptive.

Figure 5. Participants Overall Viewpoints on Disruptive Behavior
8
1
5
9
6
7
10
9
6
10
6
3
2
1
5
3
18
6
1
5
5
Ea8ng
Talking on the Phone
Tex8ng
Talking without raising hand
Coming in late
Sleeping
Disrup$on in the Classroom- Overall
Not Disrup8ve
Somewhat Disrup8ve
Disrup8ve
Very Disrup8ve
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 56

Faculty members who serve on student conduct hearing boards must be knowledgeable
about a student’s procedural due process rights in order to give students an objective proceeding
(King, 2012). While the survey item included most areas found in Miranda Rights by local
authorities, due process rights standards were derived from Goss v. Lopez (1975) and Esteban v.
Central Missouri State College (1967). The standards include written statement of charges, a
hearing before a person with authority, opportunities to inspect evidence, right to bring an
advisor, an opportunity to share their own side of the incident, right to hear evidence and
question witnesses, a determination of responsibility based of evidence only, a written statement
of the finding, and the ability to record the hearing (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
Data collected illustrates the conceptual knowledge that participants have regarding
students due process rights. None of the identified rights received 100% agreement by the
participants including the right of a student to defend oneself. Additionally, data shows a critical
division from respondents on whether it is the right of a student to have a friend present, have a
lawyer present, and the right to meet the accuser.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 57

Figure 6. Participants Understandings of Student’s Rights in the Conduct Process
Data collected shows that 75% of respondents agree and strongly agree that they are
familiar with issues defined by Title IX and 80% of respondants state they are comfortable
addressing incidents that involve sexual misconduct. However, it is possible that gender may be
a contributing factor in participants’ responses. Anaylyzing the data with the gender of the
particpant indicated that 36% of female participants were not comfortable addressing incidents
about sexual misconduct compared to 100% of male participants that stated they were
comfortable in addressing incidents about sexual misconduct. Additionally, 21% of female
participants stated they were unfamiliar with Title IX issues as compard to 17% of male
participants.
17
12
20
18
17
12
19
8
19
4
9
1
3
4
9
2
13
2
Right to remain silent
Right to meet an accuser
Right to defend oneself
Right to appeal a decision
Right to speedy trial
Right to have a lawyer present
Right to have an advisor present
Right to have a friend present
Right to view all informa8on about the
incident
Student's Rights in the Conduct Process
Yes
No
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 58

Figure 7. Participants Responses to Title IX

Figure 8. Male and Female Participant Responses to Addressing Title IX
4
5
14
13
2
2
I am familiar with Title IX issues
I am comfortable addressing
incidents that involve sexual assault
Title IX Overall
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
5
5
8
1
1
Males
Females
Male and Female Comparison in
Comfortability in Addressing Title IX
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 59

Figure 9. Male and Female Participant Responses to Familiarity of Title IX
Motivation Results
Full-time faculty members are required to serve on at least one shared governance
committee. Survey items asked participants to rank value related to serving on shared
governance committees and hearing boards. Data collected illustrate that participants lean toward
valuing participating on shared governance committees over serving on hearing boards.
Participants indicated that 100% of them value serving on shared governance committees while
83% see value in participating on student conduct hearing boards. However, gender may be a
defining factor in the participant’s responses. A closer look at the data show that female
participants value serving on hearing boards less that shared governance committees, while male
participants value each equally. These responses may showcase the attainment value that faculty
members have in comparison to other opportunities (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011)
1
3
4
10
1
1
Males
Females
Male and Female Comparison of Familiarity
with Title IX
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 60

Figure 10. Participant Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and Hearing Boards

Figure 11. Female Participant Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and Hearing Boards
2 1 9
11
6
8
Par8cpa8ng on a hearing board
Par8cpa8ng on a shared governance
commiUee
Faculty Value
Not Valuable
Somewhat Valuable
Valuable
Very Valuable
2 1 5
7
4
6
Par8cpa8ng on a hearing board
Par8cpa8ng on a shared governance
commiUee
Value Females
Not Valuable
Somewhat Valuable
Valuable
Very Valuable
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 61

Figure 12. Male Participant Perceptions of Value Regarding Committees and Hearing Boards
Participants were asked to identify time spent on activites related to their responsibilities
as a full-time faculty member. Data collected illustrates that on average, 45% of time is spent on
office hours and other factors for the participants. These “other factors” include administrative
paperwork, student club advising, mentoring students, committee preperation, and
responsibilities within their particular instructional division. Additonally, particpants spent the
remaining amount of time equally (11%) on grading, advising, preperation, email, and meetings.
This data showcases how the time and resources are weighed against other tasks (Eccles, 2006;
Rueda, 2011).

4
4
2
2
Par8cpa8ng on a hearing board
Par8cpa8ng on a shared governance
commiUee
Males Value
Not Valuable
Somewhat Valuable
Valuable
Very Valuable
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 62

Figure 13. Time Devoted to Activities by Participants
Organizational Results
Participants were asked to identify how appreciated they felt by the organization in
serving as an instructor inside the classroom and were also asked to identify how appreciated
they felt by the organization in matters relating to outside the classroom. Data collected shows
that participants felt more appreciated teaching inside the classroom at than serving in areas
outside the classroom. However, both responses illustrated low appreciation by the organization.
Only 63% said they felt appreciated teaching inside the classroom, while only 52% said they felt
appreciated in areas outside the classroom. This highlights the lack of recognition felt by faculty
members in all areas and may be critical in supporting the notion that motivation is stemmed
from recognition provided by an organization (Hansen, Smith and Hansen, 2002). Additionally,
data gathered illustrated in Figure 13 adds to the understanding of the organization’s cultural
Grading
11%
Advising
11%
Office Hours
23%
Prepera8on
11%
Email
11%
Mee8ngs
11%
Other
22%
Time Devoted to Ac$vi$es
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 63
setting by indicating that participants fill their time with faculty obligations and may not be able
to serve in other activities without sacrificing current responsibilities.

Figure 14. Participants Perceptions of Being Appreciated
Findings
After the 21 participants completed the survey, they were asked if they would be
interested participating in a semi-structured 30-minute interview. Eight of the 21 participants
agreed to participate. These participants were asked questions about their experiences working
on shared governance committees, dealing with disruptive behavior, creating a positive
emotional climate in the classroom, and other matters related to their roles and responsibilities as
a full-time faculty member. Interviews were transcribed and then coded that led to themes
emerging. The following section discusses the knowledge, motivation, and organizational themes
and sub-themes that were derived from the interviews.
3
2
6
5
7
9
3
3
Serving in areas outside the
classroom
Teaching inside the classroom
Faculty Being Appreciated
Not Appreciated
Somewhat Appreciated
Appreciated
Very Appreciated
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 64
Knowledge Findings
The knowledge theme follows the Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model used in
this study to systematically identify gaps. This section answers part of the research question that
examines the knowledge influences that deter full-time faculty from serving on student conduct
hearing boards. Two themes emerged from the interviews. The first is the participants’ lack of
understanding and familiarity with student conduct hearing boards and the shared governance
structure. Second is the participants’ ability to create a positive emotional climate in the
classroom and their capacity to transfer that practice into the environment of a hearing board.
Familiarity with student conduct hearing boards and shared governance. Interview
questions asked participants to explain their familiarity with student conduct hearing boards. Of
the eight participants, one had experience serving on a student conduct hearing board. The
remaining participants had not participated on a student conduct hearing board and varied in their
familiarity with these hearing boards. Some stated that had some knowledge that there was a
process in place while others stated this study was the first time they heard of student conduct
hearing boards.
Participants also discussed this lack of familiarity when directly asked about their
familiarity with a student conduct hearing board. Joy stated, “I have never heard of it before your
survey in your emails.” Jasmine said, “I don’t know much about it.” Wendy said, “The student
what? Sorry.” Kim said, “I’ve never really seen a student hearing.” and Max stated, “I know it
takes place, but I really don’t know any more besides that.” Additionally, half of the participants
were concerned that they would be adjudicating cases that involved their peer faculty members if
there was a sexual misconduct issue as Lucy points out, “Okay if it’s student to student, I think
it’s a sensitive matter, but its okay. But if it’s like student and faculty, it’s like ooh.” The above
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 65
statements illustrate the lack of familiarity with declarative and procedural knowledge as it
relates to student conduct hearing boards. This information is necessary as it contains the
theoretical and foundational principles that can deter knowledge gaps (Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
2011).
Surprisingly, participants showed a lack of familiarity with the shared governance
structure as well. Each full-time faculty member is required to serve on at least one shared
governance committee. Participants reflected on their challenges with the structure. Joy stated, “I
feel the structure is kind of there, but it is hard to figure out exactly how it works.” Jasmine
stated, “I was kind of thrown into it, and I was just like, ‘Well what do I do?” Additionally,
participants who have been employed recently also shared their lack of familiarity with shared
governance. “Well I’m relatively new on campus so it’s pretty minimal to be perfectly candid,”
Wendy said. While Blake said, “Because you know being two years in, a lot of it is just finding
out what’s happening and how the structure of the organization and shared governance works. I
just found out what shared governance meant six months ago.”
Lucy, who served on a hearing board, reiterated some of the other participant’s remarks
in her experience. Lucy said, “Well, I wish that there was some sort of training, no matter how
brief, because the other colleague that was in there obviously had more experience and knew
how to handle it.” Moreover, when asked what was still needed should Lucy be asked to serve
again, Lucy responded with, “I know that we found out about procedure, but I would like to
know the procedure in advance instead of on the spot. So procedure, and then so I have a sense
of okay, this is going to happen.”

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 66
The lack of familiarity with the shared governance structure may make it difficult to
serve on a required shared governance committee. The lack of knowledge does not give the
participant the ability to make an informed decision on which committees to serve. These factors
may make it more difficult for faculty to choose to participate in additional areas including a
student conduct hearing board.
A positive emotional climate in the classroom. Each participant was asked what a
positive emotional climate looked like in their classroom and was asked how they created a
positive emotional climate in the classroom. Emotional climate is the environment an educator
creates stemmed from being empathetic to the needs of students, a respectful relationship,
respect for the student’s perceptions, and the absence of harsh conduct practices that create
distrust (Brackett et al., 2011).
Many of the participants explained that a positive emotional climate to them is one where
students are engaged. They defined engagement as students asking questions and adding to the
conversation as stated by Jasmine, “I feel it's more of a conversation between my students and
myself. So a great deal of interaction, a great deal of group work.” Two participants specifically
addressed the importance of mutual respect and care in the classroom. Wendy stated, “I try and
make sure that I am treating my students with the utmost amount of respect… it really starts with
my own behavior… I usually have that reciprocated if I can kind of create that.” Kim explained
the practical results from a positive emotional climate inside the classroom by stating, “I found
students are more likely to give me grace and overlook something stupid that I might say or
overlook a moody day that I might have, if I'll do that for them.”
Although some of the participants did not directly specify factors that create a positive
emotional climate, they did identify those factors when having critical conversations with a
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 67
disruptive student. Every participant discussed a mindfulness of their student’s background,
socioeconomic status, and was able to convey how they would have respectful conversations
with students without referring them to the student conduct office. Participants were asked if
they ever referred a student because of conduct, but many of the participants confirmed they
have had issues in the past with students but felt that it did not need to escalate to conduct
because of the trusting rapport they created with their students. Joy stated, “If you really know
someone, you can have that conversation in a very friendly way. Like, I am saying this because I
want you to learn. I want you to be successful. Not like, I'm being your teacher and I'm being
mean.”
These examples illustrate that faculty members are creating a positive emotional climate
in their classrooms, but not every participant demonstrated their ability to articulate how they
were creating a positive emotional climate. A positive emotional climate builds trust, rapport,
and a strong teacher-student relationship, which ultimately lessens disruption in the classroom
and recidivism (Brackett et al., 2011). This information is critically important to a hearing board
process since the student conduct process is at its core educational. Faculty members who serve
on hearing boards must utilize this skillset. Qualitative data indicated that some participants are
not reflecting on their own behaviors that create a positive climate and therefore cannot
successfully transfer those abilities into a student conduct hearing board (Ferry & Gordon, 1998;
Wilson, 2008).
Motivation Findings
The motivation theme follows the Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model used in
this study to systematically identify gaps. This section answers part of the research question that
examines the motivation influences that deter full-time faculty from serving on student conduct
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 68
hearing boards. Three themes emerged from the interviews. The first is the participants’
attainment value placed on serving on a student conduct hearing board. The second theme is the
cost-value associated with serving on areas outside of the classroom. Third, the utility value
placed on serving on a student conduct hearing board. Each of these themes is aligned with the
expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006).
Attainment value. Participants had mixed feelings about whether student conduct
hearing boards were aligned with their personal values and the values of the institution. Lucy
stated, “It’s crucial… They don't want it to be something that is subjective or biased, so that's
their way to say okay, we wash our hands clean of this because of this process and all of these
different people involved.” Other participants stated that these hearing boards were focused on
ensuring fairness. Max said, “…But it’s good I think to actually have a board to actually decide
if it’s actually misconduct, how that should be handled. I think it’s a much more fair process for
both the students and the faculty.” Joy stated, “So I think having a plan, having procedures,
having faculty and staff knowing the procedures and having students know there are
repercussions…And knowing they will get a fair trial. This is very important at a school.”
Still, two participants perceived student conduct hearing boards to be against their value
of creating positivity on campus. Blake stated, “Well because it is negative… you know when
you have folks are so desperate that they’ll cheat and lie and defraud and do those things, you
know that more times than not it’s not done out of maliciousness…” However, Blake was able to
come to terms with their ability to serve by saying, “I don’t have a heart for it but I definitely
know the institution has a need for it and there’s an appreciation for that.” However, Hannah
explained that by serving on a student conduct hearing board they could help change the negative
perception, “I generally try to always think there’s a positive outcome with something and
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 69
sometimes committees like that can be kind of heavy with like disciplinary people, so I thought
maybe I could be like a healthy medium to that too.”
When asked about serving on a student conduct hearing board that may reference gender-
based discrimination, all of the participants said that would not deter them from serving. Max
said, “that would definitely be a tough board to serve on, but I would not have a problem with
that.” Other participants specified the importance and how interested they are in learning more
about Title IX. Kim said, “This is something I care about, so I would do it just to learn.” Wendy
said, “I think because that seems to be one of the more dramatic issues, and it does have a sense
of taboo around it socially, therefore it’s probably very important.”
These statements illustrate a misalignment of values placed on hearing boards.
Participants both see these boards as assisting the organization’s mission through fairness, while
others believe these hearing boards are too negative. As Rueda (2011) has stated, the individual’s
perception of whether a task supports or conflicts with their current role and their personal
beliefs is very important to make an active choice to participate. The varying perceptions of
participants clearly indicate a conflict between personal and organizational values.
Cost-value. Participants were clear in indicating that time is a factor when deciding
whether to volunteer or participate in areas outside of the classroom. For example, participants
stated that although participating on shared governance committees is a requirement as part of
their responsibilities as full-time faculty, many of their peers tend to circumvent these
responsibilities by selecting committees that are perceived to have the least amount of work
(mental effort) and time. “People avoid signing up for and volunteering for the work intensive
committees…” Kim said. “We passed around a list with all the committees and you put your
name next to the one you want and it tells you how many you can have. So people actually will
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 70
sit in the front to be close to the list,” Joy said describing how faculty members sign up for these
committees.
Joy explained why time is an important factor when choosing to participate in areas. “But
it is definitely is a time commitment. I think people feel very overloaded. I have already got my
classes, all of my students reaching out to me. I already have got all my other things going on
and in addition to that I am going to serve on this other committee.” Blake discussed the thought
process when deciding to add an activity to their current schedule. “First and foremost who am I
working with, time of course. My heart and time are already in so many different places on
campus that’s already going to be another thing?” Joy stated, “Oh that’s a lot of work, oh that’s
a lot of time, that’s a lot of things,” when considering other opportunities to serve on campus.
Although Joy argued that many of the time constraints are created because faculty members do
not want to work on Fridays by stating, “Every other job in the world works on Fridays, but you
ask a faculty member to do something on a Friday and they are like, what?” These statements
support the notion that faculty perceive the time commitment to serve in areas outside of the
classroom as too high when compared to their other tasks and responsibilities inside the
classroom (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Utility value. Two participants explained their enthusiasm in serving on shared
governance committees because it would help them reach tenure. “There are a lot of junior
faculty like myself that are like, okay, tell me where to go. Like, you know? I’ll do whatever you
want kind of thing, I need tenure. So, I say by consensus, but you know, there’s politics behind
that,” Kim said. Kim indicates that faculty members understand that involving themselves on
committees and areas outside the classroom can be critical when decisions about tenure are
made. Wendy reaffirms this notion by stating, “…I have a feeling there are other motivations.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 71
Like if someone is in the tenure process and they are assessing, ‘alright, well what am I doing as
far as extra things outside of the classroom?’ So I have seen a couple of individuals just in my
time in that committee come on their own accord.” These responses demonstrate that participants
do understand and value the importance of serving on committees to advance their career. This
idea is support by Eccles (2006) and Rueda (2011) under the expectancy value theory.
Organizational Findings
The organization theme follows the Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model used in
this study to systematically identify gaps. This section answers part of the research question that
examines the organizational influences that deter full-time faculty from serving on student
conduct hearing boards. Two themes emerged from the interviews. The first is participants’
concern of being retaliated against by students. The second is the participants’ feeling of being
overwhelmed by their responsibilities and their feeling that the burden of serving in all areas
outside of the classroom is on faculty.
Five of the seven participants indicated an awareness and at times fear of a student
retaliating against them if they made a decision that a student perceived as unfavorable. When
asked about referring a student through the conduct process, Kim explained why that happens
rarely in their classroom. “Because I’m scared of conflict, and I avoid it at all costs. So, I don’t
know but I try really hard to when I see any little things happening, like, just smooth it over.”
Two of the participants offered examples of their thought process and experience with retaliation
in the classroom. Blake said, “Probably after I agreed to it. I think the thought would cross my
mind but I wouldn’t say it would deter me. I mean, I’m worried about retaliation if I give a
student a ‘C,” said on participant. Joy stated, “I’m always worried about that. I have been
followed to my car several times by people who are not happy with grades.” Lucy was more
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 72
concerned with a student who could disrupt the positive emotional climate in the classroom,
“Well, if I made an unfavorable decision to that student then it's very awkward to have that
person back… It's amazing. Like one really positive force can change the class, and one negative
can change the class.”
Two participants shared their hypothetical concerns about retaliation. “I’ve thought about
before just judges and how they do have to be careful you know, and they do sometimes fear for
their lives because some of the very serious decisions they’ve had to make,” Wendy said.
Hannah stated, “I know some students have, you know, different life stories, you know, different
mental health things going on that may not have that impulse control, and will just see face value
what's going on.” These statements reflect the overwhelming concern that faculty members have
about retaliation from students. Participants also discussed their current concern of retaliation
when they submit grades. These responses highlight that retaliation may be an organizational
setting that inhibits their involvement in student conduct hearing boards.
Faculty responsibilities. Faculty members have a number of responsibilities in their
positions. All participants were concerned about time commitment when assessing other
opportunities as discussed in the motivation findings. Lucy reinforced this sentiment by saying,
“It’s on the burden of the faculty, right? Responsibility of the faculty to provide input and I guess
all that.” This statement helps to explain that faculty members have a perception that the
organization has an unrealistic expectation that faculty members must engage in all decision-
making processes. However, participants were clear that most of their peers choose committees
based on the perceived amount of time needed to serve on each committee. While some
participants stated they looked for utility and attainment value when making a choice, time
constraints was still the leading factor on whether faculty choose to participate.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 73
Synthesis
Assertions resulting from this study were derived from data gathered from the
quantitative and qualitative methods and demonstrate a strong relationship in supporting three
main assertions. The first is that participants are deficient in their knowledge of student conduct
hearing boards, their purpose, and student due process rights as illustrated in the conceptual
framework. The second assertion is that participants have varying degrees of value placed on the
importance of student conduct hearing boards, but are deterred from serving on them because of
other competing factors. The third and final assertion is that the organization does not adequately
create a culture that supports and recognizes faculty in their current roles and in roles they
choose to serve outside of the classroom.
Faculty and Their Deficiency in Knowledge about Hearing Boards
Data from surveys and interviews support the assertion that faculty members are deficient
in knowledge relating to student conduct by highlighting the varying understanding of student
rights. Surveys and interviews highlighted this lack of knowledge, as many of the participants
had no awareness that student conduct hearing boards existed. These boards are critical to a
students procedural due process rights. Participants also demonstrated inconsistency in what
they consider to be disruptive behavior in a classroom, which translated to inconsistent
perceptions of what a positive emotional climate looks like in the classroom. Additionally,
faculty members stated that Title IX situations could deter them from serving if they had to
adjudicate matters relating to their peers. However, this also highlights a lack of knowledge as
faculty members would not have to adjudicate cases that involve Title IX incidents.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 74
Faculty Conflicting Values for Serving on Hearing Boards
Data from surveys and interviews support the assertion that faculty members have
varying motivating influences that cause them to shy away from serving on student conduct
hearing boards, but also indicate motivational factors that may recruit them to serve. Participants
indicated that the their current roles do not allow participation to serve in other areas without
sacrificing current responsibilities. However, many participants shared that with additional time
to spare they may still not choose to participate because they value the classroom experience
over outside responsibilities and because student conduct hearing boards are perceived to be too
negative. Still, other stated they believe a student conduct hearing board provided fairness to
both students and faculty ensuring an objective proceeding and indicated they would serve to
sustain such perceived fairness. Finally, participants stated that they would be more eager and
willing to serve in areas outside of the classroom, including student conduct hearing boards, if it
proved to assist them in reaching tenure status as a faculty member.
Organizational Culture and Deterrence
Data collected illustrate an organizational culture and setting that does not properly orient
new faculty members on shared governance structures, recognize faculty for their achievements,
and support faculty from potential retaliation. Participants implied that they feel burdened in
their responsibilities, but do not feel recognized for teaching and serving in areas outside the
classroom. Moreover, there is an underlining fear of retaliation that deters their service on
student conduct hearing boards. Finally, participants have indicated that they are overwhelmed
with their current responsibilities and may not be able to serve in other areas; however, there is
an stressing burden placed by the organizational setting that faculty feel they must participate in
all organizational activities and decisions.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 75
Chapter Five: Recommended Solutions

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table E represent the complete list of
assumed knowledge influences and their validation. Validation is based on the most frequently
mentioned knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during eight semi-structured
interviews that utilize 21 participant survey results and supported by the literature review.
Recommendations regarding influences were derived from the literature of Clark and Estes
(2008), which explains how conscious knowledge transfers into unconscious and conceptual
knowledge, and Schraw and Dennison (1994) who suggest the importance of understanding and
self-regulating learning through metacognition and reflection. Therefore, as indicated in Table E,
these influences have been validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal
of participating on student conduct hearing boards and ultimately increasing the ability to
educate students on academic, social and ethical matters.
Table E also shows the recommendations for these highly probable influences based on
theoretical principles.
Table E
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence* Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Faculty members need to
understand the
importance of hearing
boards (D).
Most knowledge starts out as conscious
and through repetitive use changes to
unconscious knowledge. Effective
training requires detailed procedures
and effective feedback to automate
knowledge and turn it into unconscious
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide training that uses accurate
procedures and case studies that establish
the facts with relation to the importance of
hearing boards that illustrate the importance
of hearing boards.

Faculty members need to
know that students have
due process rights and
what those rights are (D).
Information needed for a specific
discipline is vital to solve problems
within that discipline (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011)
Provide a publication that defines due
process rights and a list that illustrates the
rights of students in relation to due process.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 76
Faculty members need to
self-assess their own
engagement in creating a
positive emotional
climate during the student
conduct process (M).
Metacognition is the ability to
understand one’s learning and the ability
to self regulate learning which results in
greater success (Krathwohl, 2002;
Schraw & Dennison, 1994)
Incorporate time during and after the
hearing boards that allow faculty to reflect
on their own engagement in creating a
positive emotional climate through
reflecting-in-action and reflecting-on action
techniques that encourages adjustment if
needed.

*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative;
(P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Declarative knowledge solutions. Factual knowledge, also known as declarative
knowledge, encompasses the basic facts of a subject that can include jargon, basic context, and
information that can be viewed as foundational. Declarative and procedural knowledge are both
forms of conceptual knowledge, which includes the theoretical foundations and principles about
the subject. (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). The data shows that faculty members do not have the
foundational knowledge to understand the importance of hearing boards. Gaps in conceptual
knowledge may continue until faculty members understand the basic principles about hearing
boards.
It is essential that faculty members understand how the intended outcomes of student
conduct hearing boards are tied directly to the mission of the college and thus in their classroom.
As institutional agents of the college and advocates of students, knowledge of the importance of
these boards may increase the likelihood of their involvement. Most knowledge starts out as
conscious but through repetitive use changes to unconscious knowledge. Effective training
requires detailed procedures and effective feedback to automate knowledge and turn it into
unconscious (Clark & Estes, 2008). Embedding the importance of hearing boards into faculty
thought processes is essential and can be incorporated using job aids during faculty orientation
when hired, and case studies for repetitive practice in division meetings and instructional cabinet
meetings.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 77
Declarative knowledge encompasses the basic, foundational, context of the subject
(Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Due process rights and the specificity of each of those rights are at
the forefront of formal accountability processes on college campuses (Bickel & Lake, 1994;
Kaplin & Lee, 2007; King, 2012; May, 2010). Declarative knowledge is needed to scaffold
procedural knowledge (Mayer, 2011). Faculty cannot begin to understand the procedural
knowledge until they champion the basic information. Educating faculty on this specific
information needed for student conduct hearing boards is required in order to effectively build
capacity for these stakeholders to solve problems related to student conduct (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Therefore, a publication and a list that not only defines due
process but also illustrates students’ rights through the process are necessary to increase learning.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Metacognitive knowledge includes the awareness
of the individual’s beliefs, learning, and the ability to self-regulate learning, which results in
greater success (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011 Schraw & Dennison, 1994).
Literature suggests that reflective educators are able to adapt and recognize challenges and
inconsistencies to not only curriculum but also student learning and behavior (Ferry & Gordon,
1998; Wilson, 2008). This reflective skill is an important aspect in creating a positive emotional
climate with students in hearing boards and may increase the level of engagement of faculty
members. By doing so, faculty members will have the skill necessary to effectively participate in
the hearing board process.
Educators who focus on creating a positive emotional climate in conduct may deter
recidivism and in this case hearing boards (Brackett et al., 2011). Faculty should be given a list
of reflective practices and articles on reflecting on and in action. Additionally, it is critical to
incorporate time during and after the hearing boards that allow faculty to reflect on their own
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 78
engagement in creating a positive emotional climate through reflecting-in-action and reflecting-
on action techniques that encourages adjustment if needed (Rodgers, 2002). By doing so, faculty
may be able to fully understand and adapt to the sometimes challenging situations during student
conduct hearing boards.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivational influences in Table F represent the complete list of
assumed motivational influences and their validation. Validation is based on the most frequently
mentioned motivational influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during semi-structured
interviews that utilize survey results and supported by the literature review and motivational
theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three indicators of motivation in task
performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is the active decision to begin a task
or goal. Persistence is the decision to continue the task or goal in the face of challenges, and
mental effort is the amount of intention or application of knowledge to perform a new task or
solve a problem. The assumed motivational causes were purposely aligned with expectancy
value theory (Eccles, 2006). More specifically, the assumed causes suggest that attainment value,
cost value, and utility value heavily influences an eligible full-time faculty member’s decision to
serve on student conduct hearing boards (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Therefore, as indicated in
Table F, these influences have been validated and have a high priority for achieving the
stakeholders’ goal of increasing the ability to educate students on academic, social and ethical
matters through faculty serving on student conduct hearing boards. Table F also shows the
recommendations for these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table F
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 79
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Faculty members may view
the cost of participating in the
student conduct process as
too high given that it takes
time away from other tasks.
Activating personal interest
through opportunities for choice
and control can increase
motivation (Eccles, 2006).
Add hearing boards as a shared governance
committee choice for faculty.
Faculty members may not see
participating on hearing boards
as an important aspect of their
jobs as educators.
Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).
Create materials that illustrate the
institutional values, the hearing board
objectives, and the classroom experience are
aligned.
Faculty members may not view
participating on hearing boards
as an important aspect to help
them in their profession.
Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and
utility value of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Provide faculty data and rationale that
showcase how serving on a hearing board
can benefit them in their current role and
future professional goals and recognize
faculty for serving on student conduct
hearing boards.

Value. Expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006) defines the importance and process of
how an individual first decides to start a task, and then begins to evaluate if they may have the
ability to complete it. The expectations for success and value for the task at hand is an important
factor in predicting active choice, persistence and mental effort. Attainment value describes how
a specific task is aligned with an individual’s self-identity, which can include their current
professional and volunteer roles, values, and beliefs (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). According to
Rueda (2011), the individual’s perception of whether the task supports or conflicts with their
current role and their personal beliefs is very important when choosing to start a task. Cost value
describes how the amount of time and resources a specific task needs is weighed against other
competing tasks (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Time and mental effort may be factors to consider
when making decisions (Rueda, 2011). Utility value describes whether a task is important to an
individual’s future goals (Eccles, 2006). Currently, faculty members are not serving on student
conduct hearing boards. If the assumed lack of motivation continues, the institution may not be
able to fulfill its goal of educating students on academic, social, and ethical matters.
Faculty may view the complexities of student conduct as too much mental effort (cost) to
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 80
actively choose to participate as a volunteer when weighed against other responsibilities on
shared governance committees (King, 2012; Rage & Paine, 2009; Stimpson & Janosik, 2015;
Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012). However, creating an opportunity for choice and control may
increase motivation (Eccles, 2006). Therefore, working through the college’s process to add
serving on a hearing board as an opportunity to fulfill the shared governance requirement may
provide full-time faculty the motivation to choose to participate.
Faculty members may have to decide about the professional and personal value of
volunteering for any of the various opportunities on a college campus (Rueda, 2011). Because of
the complex matters relating to student conduct, including hearing boards, faculty may not see
the attainment value at first glance (King, 2012; Ragle & Paine, 2009; Stimpson & Janosik,
2015; Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012). However, Eccles (2006) states that motivation, and learning,
is enhanced when the individual values the task. Therefore, it is important to illustrate that
objectives of a hearing board are directly aligned with the mission of the institution and the
classroom experience.
Faculty members may also be advancing toward their professional goals and may not
view participating on hearing boards as an important value to help them in their profession.
Increasing discussion on the importance of a hearing board and the utility value of the work
completed through these boards may assist in creating a positive association to serve (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003). Therefore, it is important that the organization provide faculty data and
rationale that showcase how serving on a hearing board can benefit them in their current role and
future professional goals and recognize faculty for serving on student conduct hearing boards.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 81
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 8 represent the complete list of
assumed organization influences and their validation. Validation is based on the most frequently
mentioned organization influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during semi-structured
interviews that utilize survey results and supported by the literature review and the review of
relevant organization and culture theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization and
stakeholder goals are often not achieved due to a lack of resources, most often time and money,
and stakeholder goals that are not aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001) propose two constructs about culture. Cultural models, or the observable
beliefs, attitudes, and values shared by individuals in groups are the first construct. Cultural
settings, or the settings and activities in which performance occurs is the second construct. Both
resources and processes, and cultural models and settings must align throughout the
organization’s structure to achieve the mission and goals. Therefore, as indicated in Table G,
some organizational influences have been validated and have a high priority for achieving the
stakeholders’ goal. Table G also shows the recommendations for these influences based on
theoretical principles.
Table G
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence
1: Faculty members may
not feel supported by the
organization should
retaliation occur from
serving on a hearing board.
Principals being attuned to
“organizational undercurrents” is
correlated with student learning
outcomes in schools (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty).
Provide education to supervisors to ensure
they have the tools and capacity to support
their faculty members should retaliation occur.

Communicate to faculty being recruited to
serve that administration will be trained to
address retaliation.

Review and evaluate current anti-retaliation
policies.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 82
Cultural Model Influence
2: There is a culture of not
appreciating faculty
members who serve on
various committees.
Design of incentive structure and
use of incentives are more
important that the types of
incentives used (Elmore, 2002)

Research shows that effective
reward programs motivate
employees’ ability to innovate.
Intrinsic rewards include loyalty,
empowerment, recognition, and
appreciation (Gohari, Kamkar,
Hosseinipour, & Zohoori, 2013).
Review current reward systems and
distinguish rewards for participation on shared
governance committees.
Cultural Setting Influence
1: Faculty are
overwhelmed with their
teaching responsibilities
and cannot serve in other
activities.
Focusing the work on the school’s
vision was correlated with
improvements in student learning
outcomes (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003).
Align all activities outside the classroom
toward furthering the vision, mission, and
goals of the organization. Assess these
activities and allow the stoppage of any
activities, such as current committees, that do
not further the vision, mission and goals to
free up opportunities to serve on student
conduct hearing boards.

Policies. In addition to the knowledge and motivational influences regarding faculty
serving on student conduct hearing boards, policies within the organization may also have a
strong influence on the organizational goal being met. Although knowledge and motivational
barriers can prevent stakeholders from meeting goals, Clark and Estes (2008) state that policies,
cultural models, and cultural settings can also influence the successful completion of
organizational goals.
Faculty members may not feel supported by the organization should retaliation occur
from serving on a hearing board. Ensuring that leaders are attuned and aware of the
organizational underbelly and undercurrents has been correlated with learning outcomes (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty). In order to meet the learning outcomes of a hearing board, it is important
that supervisors of faculty who serve on student conduct hearing boards are provided the
education to support faculty members should retaliation occur. It is equally important that faculty
members being recruited to serve are aware that their supervisors and senior administration will
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 83
be equipped to and address any forms of retaliation. Education is important because it will create
knowledge within this topic that will allow supervisors to problem-solve more effectively
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). The review and evaluation of current anti-
retaliation policies or the creation of an anti-retaliation policy is also essential in supporting
faculty members.
Cultural models. The organization in this study recognizes two full-time faculty
members on an annual basis for their service; however, the majority of faculty members are left
without any recognition for their service in the classroom and on committees. There are a
number of categorical and effective ways to recognize and reward employees who move the
organization forward, but there is also a healthy balance that must be struck (Hansen, Smith and
Hansen, 2002; Reilly, 2004). The factors involved in recognition and rewards are important
aspects to explore. The design of incentive structures and use of incentives are more important
that the types of incentives used (Elmore, 2002).
Research shows that reward programs stimulate employees’ creativity and performance.
Intrinsic rewards include empowerment, recognition, gratitude, and entrustment (Gohari,
Kamkar, Hosseinipour, & Zohoori, 2013). Moreover, accountability is increased when individual
roles are aligned with the organizational goals and mission; incentives and rewards systems need
to reflect the mission and goals. Therefore, it is critical that the organization review current
reward systems and distinguish rewards for participation on shared governance committees.
Cultural settings. Faculty members are overwhelmed with their teaching
responsibilities and cannot serve in activities outside of their current responsibilities. Research
shows that focusing the work on the school’s vision was correlated with improvements in student
learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Faculty members are required to serve
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 84
on at least one shared governance committees, but student conduct hearing boards are not a
committee that they can choose from. This is an organizational challenge because serving on a
student conduct hearing board does not qualify as fulfilling the responsibility of serving on a
shared governance committee. The organization has not yet determined that serving on a student
conduct hearing board is as valuable as a shared governance committee. It is recommended that
the organization give faculty a choice to serve on student conduct hearing boards and allow such
participation as fulfilling their responsibilities for shared governance.
Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders identify, articulate, and focus the
efforts of the organization on fulfilling the vision (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). The
learning outcomes of hearing boards are critical to the vision of the organization. These hearing
boards that uphold the conduct codes assist students in their successful completion of degrees or
certificates (King, 2012). Therefore it is important to align all activities outside the classroom
toward furthering the vision, mission, and goals of the organization. Moreover, all activities
should be assessed and allow for the stoppage of any activities, such as current shared
governance committees, that do not further the vision, mission and goals or the organization.
This may lessen the cost of commitment and create opportunities to serve on student conduct
hearing boards.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards. By working
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 85
backwards, the “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s
goals are both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Furthermore,
this “reverse order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other
actions. The first is the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work
behaviors. Second is the identification of indicators that learning occurred during
implementation. Third is the emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied
with implementation strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner
forces alignment between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal “buy
in” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of a student conduct hearing board is to educate students on academic,
social, and ethical matters. Full-time faculty members play a critical role on student conduct
hearing boards and assist in the educational mission of the organization. This project conducted a
gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that deter
faculty from serving on these boards. The proposed solution, a comprehensive training program,
new support initiatives, and a shift in a recognition system for serving on boards should produce
the anticipated outcome- by 2018, student conduct hearing boards will be fully staffed by faculty
100% of the time.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table H shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for student conduct
hearing boards. If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and
organizational support for full-time faculty, the external outcomes should also be realized.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 86

Table H
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1.Retention of Full Time
Enrolled Students (FTES) will
increase when a student
participates in student conduct
matters.
Funds from the state will increase with
more FTES
Collaborate with Institutional Research
to gather data each semester
2.Prospective students will feel
more positive about the college.
Results from survey to feeder high
schools.
Collaborate with Institutional Research
to gather data each semester
3.High School counselors will
see value in referring their
students to the college.
Results from surveys to feeder high
schools.
Collaborate with Institutional Research
to gather data each semester
Internal Outcomes
4. Faculty members will be
more satisfied serving on
student conduct hearing boards
than other participatory
governance committees.
Results from committee surveys from
specific questions
Aggregate data from self-reports and
compare them to other committees.
5. Increased stability in
scheduling hearing board
meetings
The amount of rescheduling will lessen
with more faculty serving.
Track rescheduling through Maxient
software.
6. Faculty engagement with
students will increase
6a. Faculty who serve on conduct
boards will increase their level of
engagement with students inside and
outside of the classroom. Volunteer
data will increase and attendance at
student events will increase
6a. Supervisors will observe
engagement levels and attendance of
events outside of the classroom.
6b. Positive/negative feedback from
supervisors
6b. Set aside semesterly times for 1:1
conversations with department chairs
and deans.
7. Faculty members will show
interest on student conduct
hearing boards
The number of faculty who show
interest will increase each year.
Solicit volunteers by clarifying the
duties.
8. Students who request a
hearing board will perceive the
outcome of the board to be fair.
There will be a balanced ratio of
appeals once a hearing board
makes a decision.
Track the number of appeals from a
hearing board.
9. Students will feel that the
organization supports their due
process rights.
9a. The number of grievances
submitted may increase at first because
students will trust the process.
9a. Use Maxient software to track
grievances and the subject matter.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 87
9b. The number of grievances will
decrease after the second year.

9b. Use Maxient software to track
grievances.
10. Participatory governance
structure will include student
conduct hearing boards as a
choice.
Academic Senate will allow faculty to
choose from the additional
responsibility.
Push the recommendation through the
Academic Senate process.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are full-time faculty. The first critical
behavior is that faculty must volunteer to serve on student conduct hearing boards. The second
critical behavior is that they must understand the different value of student conduct hearing
boards. The third critical behavior is that they must identify components of a student’s due
process. Table I shows the specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome
behaviors.
Table I
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Volunteer for student
conduct hearing boards.
The number of faculty
who volunteer.

1a. The Academic Senate
will create a tracking list of
those who volunteer each
year.
1a. Spring 2018.

Thereafter – each
semester per shared
governance procedures.
1b. The Director of Student
Life will track how long
faculty members stay on the
hearing board team.
1b. Annually
2. Identify due process
rights and when they are
violated
The number of successful
completion of hearing
boards without any
violations of due process.
2a. Team Lead shall track
errors via observation and
feedback from faculty.
2a. During each
incident.

2b. Team Lead shall assign a
“deputy” to go over checklist
of due process.
2b. “Deputy” will report
to team lead throughout
incident.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 88
3. Manage/lead faculty on
hearing boards effectively.
The number of
questions/concerns that
faculty bring up.

3a. Team Lead shall monitor
all questions and concerns
and address them
immediately.
3a. During monthly
trainings.

Survey 3b. Team Lead shall measure
self-efficacy.
3b. After each hearing
board.
The number of days
required to complete the
hearing board process
from start to finish.
3c. Team Lead shall monitor
the time period.
3c. Each hearing board.

Required drivers. Faculty members who serve on student conduct hearing boards
require the support of their direct supervisors and the organization to reinforce their involvement
with these boards. Recognition techniques should be established for achievement of performance
goals to enhance the organizational support of faculty. Table J shows the recommended drivers
to support critical behaviors of faculty.
Table J
Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including checklist of
due process for conduct
incidents.
Ongoing 2
Job Aid explaining positive
emotional climate and tasks
that add to a positive climate
in the classroom
Ongoing 3
Job Aid introducing the
mission of the hearing boards.
Ongoing 1
Job Aid describing the steps
to refer a disruptive student.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer
modeling during team
meetings.
Monthly 3
Meeting in front of Academic
Senate discussing the
Annually 1
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 89
opportunity to serve on
conduct boards.
Feedback and coaching from
Team Lead.
Ongoing 2, 3
Rewarding
Performance incentive when
time for conduct process is
efficiently met.
Per term 1, 3
Private acknowledgement
from senior administration.
Per term 1

Monitoring
Team Lead will update
members on case law and
pending cases that may
influence process.
Ongoing 2, 3
Team Lead can ask course
participants to self-report their
confidence and self-efficacy
in serving on conduct boards.
After training and each
conduct board
3
Team Lead can assess the
performance of the learner.
Frequent, quick checks can
help the organization monitor
progress and make
adjustments if results do not
match expectations at that
time
Monthly 3

Organizational support. In addition to the required drivers that support critical
behaviors, the organization must review their cultural settings and models to support the
organizational goal. It is critical that the organization provide training to management on how to
support faculty members when dealing with disruptive students and in rare cases of retaliation.
The data collected illustrated that there is a general fear of retaliation; ensuring faculty feel safe
and supported by their supervisors is particularly important in order to expect faculty to add a
new responsibility that may include a higher level of fear of retaliation. The organization must
align their goals to allow faculty cease work responsibilities that do not support the mission of
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 90
the organization. This may free up time for faculty to serve on hearing boards or other aspects
that directly support the mission. Furthermore, the organization must begin to recognize
committee work completed by faculty members in public and private settings to motivate faculty
to engage in committees.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
training that will commence after the recruitment stage, full-time faculty will be able to:
1. Recognize students’ due process rights with 100% accuracy, (D)
2. Recognize the components that create a positive emotional climate and how they create
their own, (M)
3. Recognize the due process, including timelines and steps, outlined in board policy, (D)
4. Explain the importance of hearing boards and how they are aligned to the mission of
the organization, (D)
5. Articulate why conduct boards as a worthy investment of their time, (cost-value)
6. Articulate how this committee may help them in their future career goals, (utility-
value)
7. Integrate objectives of a hearing board with their values as a person and as an educator
(attainment-value).
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program that explores the foundations of student conduct that includes case law, Title IX
regulations and policies (although hearing boards will not hear incidents of this nature), due
process components, and local policies. The learners, full-time faculty members, will study a
broad range of topics pertaining to the development and implementation of student conduct
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 91
hearing boards. The program will consist of either one three-hour face-to-face workshops, or
three one hour face-to-face workshops. The total time for completion is 180 minutes (3 hours).
Although the workshop(s) will be face-to-face, learners will be provided a job aid ahead
of time to familiarize themselves with key terms and references to the rules and regulations
pertaining to current organizational policies. Another job aid will contain a decision flowchart
illustrating the process for both behavior incidents and Title IX incidents. The job aids may be
demonstrated on a handout or through a brief PowerPoint presentation with narration.
During the in-person sessions, the focus will be to review the job aids and discuss the
process. Opportunities to ask questions and to collaborate on finding the answers will be given.
Critical case law will be discussed with opportunities for learners to make their own decisions on
a proposed outcome before reviewing the true outcome. Additionally, the workshop(s) will
model how a student conduct hearing board is run with strategically placed pauses so learners
can ask questions and discuss the process.
Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying gained knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate
learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that
learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills on
the task or job. However, learners must also be confident that they can apply their knowledge
and skills successfully and commit to using them on the job. Table K lists the evaluation
methods and timing for these components of learning.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 92
Table K
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. Intermediately during the workshops.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share,” and other individual/group
activities.
Periodically during the workshop and
documented via observation notes and
collected work.

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the workshop, participants using skills
in scenarios during individual or group work.
Intermediately after explaining a new skill.
Demonstration in groups and individually of
using the job aids to successfully perform the
skills.
During the workshop(s).
Quality of the feedback from peers during
group sharing
During the workshops.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey asking participants about their level of
proficiency before and after the training.
Before and after the training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the utility value of what they are being
asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the attainment value of what
they are being asked to do on the job through
pair and share or other group activity.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
Before and after the course.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items. Following each module or after a new skill is
practiced in workshop..
Discussions following practice and feedback
after each skill.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
Before and after the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback
after each theory or skill.

During the workshop.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 93
Create an individual action plan about how
faculty will use the components of a positive
emotional climate in their classroom and
during a hearing board.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
Before and after the course.

Level 1: Reaction
Measuring reactions. Reactions to learning involve the degree in which participants are
engaged, find the training positive, and see the relevance of the training to their roles and
responsibilities. Therefore, measuring reactions is critically important to ensure participants stay
engaged in the learning process. Table L lists the methods or tools used in measuring reactions.
Table L
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Relevance
Brief “check-in” with participants in person. After every module/lesson/unit and the
workshop

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief “check-in” with participants in person After every module/lesson/unit and the
workshop

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. For Level 1, During the in
person workshop, the instructor will conduct periodic brief pulse-checks by asking the
participants about the relevance of the content to their work and the organization, delivery, and
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 94
learning environment, or the institution. Level 2 will include knowledge checks for
understanding by the facilitator(s), collaborative dialogue through “pair and share” and reporting
out, job aids, as well as reaction to case studies. Additionally, a Level 1 and Level 2 paper survey
will be given to participants after the training has been completed.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately four weeks
after the implementation of the training, and then again at 15 weeks, the facilitator along with the
professional and organizational development coordinator, will administer a survey containing
open and scaled items using the Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from the participant’s
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their training (Level 2), application of the training to student conduct boards and their
classroom and the support from their department heads, Deans and peers they are receiving
(Level 3), and the extent to which their performance of the student conduct hearing board
process has become more accurate and timely.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal is measured by both the full-time faculty who are serving on a student
conduct hearing board and through the student(s) who are participating in the hearing. After
each hearing board is completed, the student(s) will be asked to complete a post survey about
their experience. This will focus on the external outcomes. After a decision has been given, a
survey will be given to full-time faculty about their experience, thus focusing on internal
outcomes. Both will result in the decision to add student conduct hearing board as a choice for
faculty that fulfills their participatory governance responsibilities. The dashboard below will
report the data on these measures as a monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards
will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2 and 3.
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 95

Table M
Dashboard Monitoring and Accountability Tool
ACTION/RESULT TARGET ACTUAL PREVIOUS
SEMESTER
RATING
Faculty satisfaction
after a hearing board
80% 86% 62% Green

Figure 15. Dashboard Monitoring and Accountability Tool
Summary
This project conducted a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that deter faculty from serving on these boards. The proposed solution,
a comprehensive training program, new support initiatives, and a shift in a recognition system for
serving on boards is modeled from the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 96
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This implementation and evaluation plan should ultimately
serve the goal of this study, to ensure that by 2018, student conduct hearing boards are fully
staffed by eligible full-time faculty 100% of the time. This model works backwards from the
goal, identifying indicators that connect the recommended solutions to meet the organizational
goal and allows the institution to answer three fundamental questions along implementation of
the recommended solutions through Level 1 Reaction, Level 2 Learning, Level 3, Behavior, and
Level 4 Results. The first is if the implementation techniques meet expectations. Second, if the
techniques do not meet expectations, why not. Finally, if the techniques do meet expectations
what are the reasons?
By working backwards from the goal, this model allows for the development of solution
outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors first, identified indicators that learning
occurred during implementation second, and finally creates indicators that illustrate if
stakeholders are satisfied with implementation strategies. This implementation and evaluation
plan forces alignment between the immediate solutions and the larger goal while achieving the
“buy-in” necessary to ensure successful implementation of the organizational goal (Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Conclusion
Student conduct offices have been a critical element for higher education institutions to
hold students accountable. At times, students may choose to challenge and appeal decisions by
conduct offices per their due process rights to a hearing board. These rights stem from the 14
th

amendment and have since been molded through historic case law into the current procedures
institutions use today. This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that deter faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards at a community
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 97
college located in Southern California. Results from this mixed method study indicated that
eligible full-time faculty lack the basic fundamental knowledge of student conduct, have
competing responsibilities in their roles and have misalignment between goals of a hearing board
and personal and professional values, and do not feel recognized for their current contributions
and do not feel supported should retaliation from students occur.
Solutions to these findings include extensive training for all faculty members on due
process, procedures, and the goals of hearing boards to increase knowledge. Additionally, the
creation of materials that illustrate to faculty the importance of hearing boards and how they are
aligned to the mission and values of the organization, the incorporation of rationales as to how
serving on these boards can assist in faculty members’ professional goals, and to have
participation in hearing boards meet the responsibilities of serving on a shared governance
committee to increase motivation to serve. Furthermore, the complete assessment of committee
structure to ensure they are aligned with the mission of the organization, adequate training of
management so they can support faculty if retaliation occurs, and a new recognition program are
recommended to extinguish organizational barriers.
Although only eligible full-time faculty members were studied as a stakeholder, further
studies may include adjunct faculty, also known as part-time faculty, and the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers that have systematically kept them from participating in
not only student conduct hearing boards, but as a key population of the shared governance
structure. Moreover, it may useful to study students who have gone through the conduct process
to gain their insight and experience with a positive emotional climate and compare that to the
experiences of faculty members. Finally, further studies may incorporate students who have
served on a student conduct hearing boards or have shown interest to also compare their
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 98
experiences and potential obstacles.
This study should be used to effectively navigate through or terminate the barriers that
deter eligible full-time faculty from serving on student conduct hearing boards at the specific
organization where this study was conducted. This problem of practice is not intended to be
generalized and implemented at any other higher education institution; however, data and
information presented can be used to scaffold further studies at other institutions facing a similar
problem. The student conduct hearing boards will continue to serve as a critical component to
educate students on academic, social, and ethical matters. It is the researchers hope that this
study has strengthened that resolve.

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 99
References
Ahern, N. R. (2009). Risky behavior of adolescent college students. Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 47(4), 21-25. doi:10.3928/02793695-
20090401-02
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bickel and Lake (1994). Reconceptualizing the university’s duty to provide a safe learning
environment: A criticism of the doctrine of in loco parentis and the restatement (second)
of torts. Journal of College and University Law, 20(3).
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom
emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 46(1), 27-36.
Burney, Virginia H.; Beilke, Jayne R (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol.31(3), p.171-197
Chory, R., & Offstein, E., (2016). Outside the classroom walls: Perceptions of professor
inappropriate out-of-class conduct and student classroom incivility among American
business students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(3), 197-214.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Derajtys, K. J., & McDowell, L. A. (2014). Restorative student judicial circles: A way to
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 100
strengthen traditional student judicial board practices. Journal of Theoretical &
Philosophical Criminology, 6(3), 213.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Ellis, A. R., (2014). Reviving the dream: Equality and the democratic promise in the post-civil
rights era. Michigan State Law Review, 789.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön's epistemology of
practice: Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(2), 98-112. doi:10.1177/074171369804800205
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Fisher, M. L. (2007). Engaging faculty: Departmental shared governance that works.
Dept Chair, 18: 21–23.
Frey Knepp, K. A. (2012). Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education.
Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 33-46.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Gohari, P., Kamkar, A., Hosseinipour, S., & Zohoori, M. (2013). Relationship between
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 101
rewards and employee performance: A mediating role of job satisfaction.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(3), pp. 571-597.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34, 64–72.
Hedman, A. S. (2012). Faculty's empathy and academic support for grieving students.
Death Studies, 36(10), 914-931. doi:10.1080/07481187.2011.605986
Jacobson, K. A. (2013). Transforming hierarchical relationships in student conduct
administration
Jacobsen, S. K. (2015). Policing the ivory tower: Students' perceptions of the legitimacy
of campus police officers. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 310-329.
Kaplin, W. A, & Lee, B. A. (2007). The Law of Higher Education (Student Version). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
King, R. H. (2012). Student conduct administration: How students perceive the
educational value and procedural fairness of their disciplinary experiences.
Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 563-580. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0058
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press. Schraw, G., Veldt, M., & Olafson, L. (2009). Knowledge.
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/knowledge/
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Love, C. (2000). Non-tenure-track faculty and shared governance. Profession, 132-
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 102
137.
May, W. P. (2010). The history of student governance in higher education. College
Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 207.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Ragle, J. D., & Paine, G. E. (2009). The disturbing student and the judicial process. New
Directions for Student Services, (128), 23-36. doi:10.1002/ss.339
Reilly, P. (2004). Non-financial recognition: The most effective of rewards? In New
reward II: Issues in developing a modern remuneration system. Brighton, UK:
Institute for Employment Studies, 40–60.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00181.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Education Quarterly, 48(2), 98-
112.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 103
Teachers College Press.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Sells, D. (2002). Parents and campus safety. New Directions for Student Services, (99),
25-36. doi:10.1002/ss.58.
Sirin, S. R., (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3): 417-53.
Stimpson, M. T., & Janosik, S. M. (2015). The conduct system and its influence on
student learning. Journal of College Student Development, 56(1), 61.
Stotzer, R. L., & Hossellman, E. (2012). Hate crimes on campus: Racial/ethnic diversity
and campus safety. Sage Publications, Inc.
Wallin, D. L. (2004). valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and
technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4),
373-391. doi:10.1080/10668920490424087
Waters, Marzano & McNulty
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wilson, J. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: A chronological consideration of reflective
practice. Reflective Practice, 9(2), 177-184. doi:10.1080/14623940802005525

FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 104
Appendix A
Survey Items
Demographic Information
Question 1. What is your gender?
A. Male
B. Female
C. Decline to State

Question 2. Which of the following describes your faculty position at (Institution)?
A. Instructional
B. Non-Instructional

Question 3. What division do you teach in?
A. Applied Technology, Transportation & Culinary Arts
B. Arts & Humanities
C. Criminal Justice (Police Academies)
D. Mathematics, Business & Computer Technology
E. Library and Learning Support Services
F. Science
G. Social Sciences, Human Development & Physical Education

Teaching Experience
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 105
Question 4. How long have you been teaching at (Institution)? Please write your answer and round
to the nearest year ________.

Question 5. Have you taught at a different college other than (Institution)?
A. Yes. If so please write your answer and round to the nearest year _______.
B. No

Student Conduct
Question 6. On a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being not disruptive and 4 being very disruptive how
disruptive would the following behaviors be if a student exhibited them in your classroom?
A. Eating 1 2 3 4
B. Talking on the Phone 1 2 3 4
C. Texting 1 2 3 4
D. Talking without raising hand 1 2 3 4
E. Coming in late 1 2 3 4
F. Sleeping 1 2 3 4
Question 7. Please check all items that you believe are a student’s rights in the conduct process:
A. Right to remain silent
B. Right to meet the accuser
C. Right to defend oneself
D. Right to appeal a decision
E. Right to a Speedy Trial
F. Right to have a lawyer present
G. Right to have an advisor present
H. Right to have a friend present
I. Right to view all information about
the incident
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 106
J. Other
______________________________
________________________

Faculty Involvement
Question 8. Have you ever served on a student conduct hearing board?
A. Yes B. No

Question 9. On a scale of 1-4, with one being not valuable and 4 being very valuable,
how valuable for your role as a faculty member do you perceive participating on hearing
boards to be?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Question 10. How many shared governance/participatory governance committees do you
serve on?
A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 3
E. 4
F. 5 or more
FACULTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT HEARING BOARDS 107

Question 11. On a scale of 1-4, with one being not valuable and 4 being very valuable, how
valuable for your role as a faculty member do you perceive participating on shared governance
committees?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Question 12. Are you a current club advisor?
A. Yes B. No

Question 13. How much time do you spend on the following activities outside of the
classroom per week? Please round to the nearest hour
A. Grading: ____ hours
B. Advising: ____ hours
C. Office hours: ____ hours
D. Preparation: ____ hours
E. Emails: ___ hours
F. Phone Calls: ____ hours
G. Meetings: ____ hours
H. Other: ____ hours
I. Other: ____ hours
Running head: FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 108

Faculty Recognition
Question 11. Have you ever been rewarded or recognized for your service on committees outside
of the classroom?
A. Yes
B. No

Question 12. On a scale of 1-4, with one being not appreciated and 4 being very appreciated,
how appreciated do you feel serving in areas outside of the classroom?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Question 13. On a scale of 1-4, with one being not appreciated and 4 being very appreciated,
how appreciated do you feel teaching inside the classroom?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Title IX
Question 14. On a scale of 1-4, with one being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree, are
you familiar with Title IX issues?
FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 109

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Question 15. On a scale of 1-4, with one being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree, are
you comfortable addressing incidents of sexual assault?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

Thank You
Thank you for your participation in this study. Any questions or concerns can be directed to Ray
Carlos, racarlos@usc.edu. If you are interested in serving on a student conduct hearing board,
please contact Ray Carlos at rcarlos@valleycollege.edu. Please note the email differences.

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 110

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
1. Tell me about your experience working on shared governance committees at SBVC.

2. How do you feel about the shared governance structure?

3. What has been your experience like serving on a shared governance committee?

a. Can you give me an example of a positive moment? Negative moment?

4. Explain to me how you ended up on this committee.

5. I’d like to switch gears and focus on the classroom. What does a positive atmosphere in
your classroom look like?

a. How do you create a positive atmosphere in your classroom?

6. Have you ever had an experience with a disruptive student in the classroom?

a. Tell me about it OR Why don’t you think you’ve ever had one?

7. If you had to refer a disruptive student to someone, how would you go about doing that?

8. Do you think the college supports holding students accountable for behaviors that are
disruptive in the classroom?

9. Talk to me about your familiarity with a student conduct hearing board.

a. Have you ever served on a student conduct hearing board?

i. If yes, walk me through the experience.

ii. If no, why not?

10. What are some things you would consider if you were asked to serve on a hearing board?

11. Talk me through how you would feel serving on a hearing board that involves sexual
misconduct.

12. Some would say that the student conduct hearing board is a crucial part of any institution.
Would you agree or disagree?

a. How do you think it plays a factor here? Or how do you think it can play a factor
here?
FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 111

13. Would you be cautious about retaliation if you served on a hearing board? Why or why
not?

14. Is there anything else you would like to add relating to student conduct?

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 112

Appendix C
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS: A GAP ANALYSIS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. Please feel free to ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand faculty participation on a student conduct hearing
board; and through that, supporting the institution’s goal of educating students on academic,
social, and ethical matters.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to fill out a survey that may take up to
ten minutes. You will not have to answer any of the questions that you are uncomfortable
answering. After the survey, you will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview
lasting approximately 30 minutes. Guiding questions will be asked but the interview will be
conversational and follow-up questions may be asked. The interview will be audio-recorded and
notes will be taken. You will not have to answer any questions that you are uncomfortable
answering. If you do not want to be taped, you will not be able to participate in this study. Again,
you will not have to answer any of the questions that you are uncomfortable answering.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You may receive one hour of credit toward your required participatory governance requirement
at the end of your participation.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 113

CONFIDENTIALITY
You will not be asked to identify yourself in the interview or survey. The interview will be
conducted by Raymond A. Carlos, a doctorate student and current employee at San Bernardino
Valley College. You will have the right to review and edit the audio recordings or transcripts.
Only the professional transcriber and Raymond A. Carlos will have access to the audio
recordings. Any identifiable information will be edited out and disguised and the audio-
tapes/digital recording will be erased and destroyed no later than June 2020. The transcripts will
be stored on a password-protected computer indefinitely. Information may be released to Faculty
at the University of Southern California for the purpose of educational guidance.

Required language:
The members of the research team, San Bernardino Valley College and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions or any concerns about the study, please contact the following individual:

Principal Investigator
Raymond A. Carlos
San Bernardino Valley College
701 S Mount Vernon Ave, CC-137
Tel: (626) 524-1047
Email: racarlos@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 114

Appendix D
Recruitment Letter
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California. Your participation is voluntary.

The purpose of this study aims to understand what influences your consideration to serve on a
student conduct hearing board in hopes to review the current processes and procedures at San
Bernardino Valley College. This will allow the institution to serve its goal of educating students
on academic, social, and ethical matters.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to fill out a survey that may take up to
ten minutes. You will also have the option of participating in an interview. However, you are not
required to participate in the interview process to fill out the survey. The survey and interview
responses will be confidential.

If you have questions or any concerns about the study, please contact the following individual:

Principal Investigator
Raymond A. Carlos
San Bernardino Valley College
701 S Mount Vernon Ave, CC-137
Tel: (626) 524-1047
Email: racarlos@usc.edu

To begin the survey, please click on the arrow below.

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 115

Appendix E
Levels 1 and 2
Q: I took responsibility to be engaged through the training.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: The information I received is applicable to my work inside the classroom.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: The presentation style of the facilitator added to my learning experience.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: The location met my needs as a learner.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: I would recommend this program to a colleague.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 116

Appendix F
Blended
Level 1
Q: What I learned through this training session will help me inside the classroom as a faculty
member?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: I will recommend this training to my peer faculty members?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Level 2
Q: I am confident that I can apply what I learned to be an effective participant on a student
conduct hearing board.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: What additional support will you need to implement what you learned on a hearing board?

Level 3
Q: I have applied the factors of a positive emotional climate learned through training to my
classroom?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
Q: Describe any challenges that arose from applying what you learned through training while
FACULTY AND STUDENT HEARING BOARDS 117

serving on a student conduct hearing board and provide any solutions you may have to overcome
those challenges.

Level 4
Q: I have seen an impact on the following areas as a result of serving on a student conduct
hearing board (check all that apply):
a. Stronger relationship with students in my classroom
b. Increased connection to the college
c. Increased feeling of recognition and appreciation at the college
d. More respect from my peers
e. Other
f. Other
Q: How has serving on a student conduct hearing board contributed to the mission and vision of
the college?

_________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that affect eligible full-time faculty involvement on student conduct hearing boards in a California Community College. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis operated as the framework for this study. A sequential explanatory mixed method study was conducted using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results indicated that eligible full-time faculty lack the basic fundamental knowledge of student conduct, have competing responsibilities in their roles and experience a misalignment between goals of a hearing board and personal and professional values, do not feel recognized for their current contributions and do not feel supported should retaliation from students occur. These barriers play a critical role in hindering the ability to educate students on the academic, social, and ethical matters. The study concludes with recommended solutions derived from relevant literature and an implementation and evaluation plan that utilized the evaluative framework found in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Limitations and delimitations are presented as well as recommendations for future studies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Employment rates upon MBA graduation: An evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

A knowledge, motivation and organizational gap analysis for integrating the arts with a STEM curriculum

Asset Metadata

Creator Carlos, Raymond Anthony (author)

Core Title Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/03/2017

Defense Date 10/13/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college,emotional climate,faculty,gap analysis,hearing boards,OAI-PMH Harvest,procedural due process,student conduct

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee member), Suite, Denzil (committee member)

Creator Email racarlos@usc.edu,raymondacarlos@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-449181

Unique identifier UC11264164

Identifier etd-CarlosRaym-5870.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-449181 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CarlosRaym-5870.pdf

Dmrecord 449181

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carlos, Raymond Anthony

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA