University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building community among college undergraduates

(USC Thesis Other)

Building community among college undergraduates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i
Building Community Among College Undergraduates
by
Jeffrey Strout Tylicki
A Dissertation 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 2023

BUILDING COMMUNITY ii
Abstract
This qualitative study investigated undergraduate experiences and perceptions of peer
connectedness, through the lens of student journalists, in order to identify positive elements of
community building on college campuses. The distinctive and progressively accessible collegiate
institutions in the United States have historically been an important component of the country’s
societal development, and currently enroll about 40% of the Generation Z 18-to-24-year-old age
cohort. This generation has exhibited a worldwide crisis of mental health that includes increased
feelings of loneliness, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, and poorly developed social skills,
amplified by the enormity of the Covid-19 pandemic. The methodology of semi-structured
interviews, supported by secondary data and artifacts, was subjected to thematic analysis. Key
themes that emerged from the findings include subjects’ definition of community as safe,
comfortable space where a sense of belonging is forged through collective experience; the
concept of “gateway” organizations that new students initially gravitate toward; the value of peer
mentorship; the desire for social engagement; intrinsic motivation through rewarding
accomplishment; and the disruption of the pandemic across all aspects of students’ lives.

BUILDING COMMUNITY iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Context and Background of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 2
Importance of the Study 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology 4
Definitions 6
Assumptions 8
Limitations and Delimitations 9
Researcher Positionality 9
Research Ethics 11
Summary 11
Organization of the Dissertation 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Search Description 13
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 14
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model 14
Ecology of the Undergraduate Student 17
Conceptual Framework: Undergraduate Peer Relationships Dynamics 19
Review of Research 20
The U.S. College Undergraduate Experience 21
Expanded Access 21
Evolution of Campus Culture 23
Benefits of Involvement in Student Organizations 24
Undergraduate Environment 25
Demographic Trends 25
Generation Z 27
Campus Mental Health and Wellness 28
Student Connectedness Issues 30
Motivation Factors 30
Effects of Covid-19 pandemic 31
Student Engagement Dynamics 32
Professional Engagement 33
Transformational Strategies 33
Mentorship 34
Successful Student Engagement Practices 34
Conclusion 36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 37
Overview of Design 37
Research Questions 38

BUILDING COMMUNITY iv
Research Setting 38
Participants 39
Target and Accessible Population 39
Sample 39
Sampling Method 40
Recruitment 41
Data Collection 41
Data Sources 41
Interview Protocol 43
Demographic Survey 44
Secondary Data 44
Documents and Artifacts 45
Data Collection Procedures 45
Confidentiality Parameters 46
Data Management/Encryption 46
Dissemination of Findings 46
Data Analysis 47
Descriptive Analysis 47
Thematic Content Analysis 47
Familiarization 47
Coding 48
Generating Themes 48
Reviewing Themes 48
Defining and Naming Themes 48
Writing Up 49
Document Analysis 49
Define the Research 50
Collect and Sample the Data 50
Select and Prepare the Data for Qualitative Analysis 50
Codebook Development and Coding 50
Analysis and Comparison 50
Interpretation of Findings 51
Secondary Data Analysis 51
Reliability 51
Dependability 51
Confirmability 52
Validity 52
Credibility 52
Transferability 53
Conclusion 53
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 55
Introduction 55
Semi-Stuctured Interview Protocol 55
Artifacts: Newspaper Articles 55
Secondary Data 55

BUILDING COMMUNITY v
Structure of Findings Analysis 56
Demographic Data Summary 56
Research Question 1: How do undergraduate students perceive peer connectedness and
motivation? 58
Defining Community 61
Gateway Organizations 62
High Velocity Organizations 64
Social Engagement 65
Finding a Voice 67
Research Question 2: How does paper connectedness impact undergraduates’ motivation and
their campus experience? 68
Rewarding Activities 71
Friends Within or Outside Academic Major 72
Academic/Extracurricular Co-Enrichment 74
Mentoring 75
Institutional Connection 77
Research Question 3: What are challenges to peer connectedness for undergraduates? 80
Covid-19 pandemic 82
Formality and Accessibility 87
Housing/Living Situation 88
Friends With Disparate Interests 90
Research Question 4: How can motivational peer connectedness on campuses be improved? 91
Promotional/Outreach 93
Mentoring 94
Food 95
Cross-organization Involvement 96
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 98
Introduction 98
Summary of Findings 98
Discussion of Findings 98
Conclusions to RQ1: Undergraduate Students Perceptions of Peer Connectedness
and Motivation 100
Conclusions to RQ2: Impact of Peer Connectedness and Motivation on the
Undergraduate Campus Experience 101
Conclusions to RQ3: Challenges to Undergraduate Peer Connectedness and
Motivation 103
Conclusions to RQ4: Improving Motivational Peer Connectedness on Campus 104
Suggestions for Future Research 104
Recommendations 104
Belonging & Collective/Shared Experience 105
Intrinsic Motivation 106
Mentorship 107
Social Engagement 108
Conclusion 109
References 110

BUILDING COMMUNITY vi
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 122
Appendix B: Demographic Survey 128
Appendix C: Newspaper Articles Used in Document Analysis 129
Appendix D: Secondary Data 130
Appendix E: Internal Review Board (IRB) Approval 131
Appendix F: Recruitment Letter 132
Appendix G: Study Information Sheet / Informed Consent 133

BUILDING COMMUNITY vii
List of Tables
Table 1: U.S. College Enrollment 2010-2018 26
Table 2: U.S College Student Mental Health Trends 2013-2021 29
Table 3: Data Sources 42
Table 4: Participant Demographic Characteristics 57
Table 5: RQ1 Themes: Perceptions of Peer Connectedness and Motivation 60
Table 6: RQ2 Themes: Peer Connectedness Impact on Motivation and Campus Experience 70
Table 7: RQ3 Themes: Challenges to Peer Connectedness and Motivation 81
Table 8: RQ4 Themes: How Peer Connectedness on Campus can be Improved 92

BUILDING COMMUNITY viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ecological Systems Model – College Undergraduate 16
Figure 2: Undergraduate Peer Relationship Dynamics 20
Figure 3: Student Newspaper Staff Demographics, Fall Semester 2022 40

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The current college age cohort of young adults exhibits difficulties making interpersonal
connections with their peers and is in the midst of a worldwide mental health crisis. The National
College Health Assessment tracked significant increases among college students between 2011
and 2018 in depression, anxiety, thoughts of suicide and suicide attempts (Duffy, Twenge, &
Joiner, 2019). On one large western United States (U.S.) university campus, these trends
manifested in the fall of 2019 with at least nine student deaths attributed to suicide or drug use
(Weston, 2020). In March 2020, colleges and universities in the U.S. responded to the onset of
the Covid-19 pandemic by shutting their doors and sending students home to take up remote
studies. During the first few months of isolation, a survey of students enrolled at 14 U.S. college
campuses reported 88% suffering moderate to severe stress (Lee et al, 2021). Two recurring
themes from interviews with students during the pandemic were a lack of close college
friendships and the need for interpersonal connection during crisis (Lippke et al, 2021). This
dissertation study, “Building Community Among College Undergraduates,” investigated on-
campus experiences that promoted connectedness among peers.
Context and Background of the Problem
An analysis of the Annual Freshman survey conducted of in-coming U.S. college
students, Twenge et al. (2019) revealed that current college freshmen spend an average of eight
hours per week less in-person with people of their own age cohort than the previous student
generation. A national health study of 50,054 college students in Norway showed that loneliness
among students increased from 16.5% in 2014 to 23.6% in 2018 (Sivertsen, 2020). These trends
indicate a social development problem within this age group. A 2014-2015 study found that
struggles with social interaction was the most common stressor among college students at a large

BUILDING COMMUNITY 2
midwestern university (Acharya et al., 2018). Underscoring the need to address this problem, a
survey by Moeller and Seehuus (2019) of northeastern U.S. undergraduates linked loneliness to
poorly developed social skills, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.
Use of technology influences student peer interactions and feelings of connectedness.
Over the eight-year period from 2010 to 2017, electronic communication displaced time spent on
in-person interactions among adolescents and college students (Twenge et. al., 2019). In a
comparison of the Annual Freshman national four-year college survey and Monitoring the Future
national high school survey, Twenge et al. (2019) concluded, with a precisely inverse
relationship, that the amount of time adolescents and college freshmen spent socializing in
person declined by an average of eight hours per week; and conversely over the same period
their use of social media increased by an average of eight hours per week.
In the midst of these societal struggles with peer connectedness, loneliness, anxiety and
mental health, this current adolescent and young adult cohort was hit with one of the most
significant sociological events in the last 100 years: the Covid-19 pandemic. College and high
school classes abruptly went to remote, online formats that lasted for as long as 18 months.
During this time of lockdowns and quarantine, student experiences included unplanned returns to
unstable family situations; unexpected caregiver roles; exposure to Covid-19; food insecurity;
isolation; restricted access to health care including mental health care; as well as inequities for
students of color (Lederer et al., 2021).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
For Student Affairs professionals on college campuses to assist undergraduates in
building interpersonal connections among their peers, it is necessary to understand the conditions
that promote socialization. The purpose of this study is to examine the lived experiences of

BUILDING COMMUNITY 3
undergraduates as they relate to involvement and motivation and identify characteristics of
engagement that influence development of interpersonal connections with peers. Identification of
these characteristics results in recommendations for designing new programs or strengthening
existing programs on college campuses that can improve development of student connectedness
with their peers.
The following research questions support the objectives of this study:
RQ1. How do undergraduate students perceive peer connectedness and motivation?
RQ2. How does peer connectedness impact undergraduates’ motivation and their campus
experience?
RQ3. What are the challenges to peer connectedness and motivation for undergraduates?
RQ4. How can motivational peer connectedness on campuses be improved?
Importance of the Study
It is important to find ways to assist undergraduates in making peer connections and
increase social interactions to help ease the mental health crisis on college campuses. In a
comprehensive mental health study involving 14,971 first-year students across 19 international
universities (including the U.S.), one-third of all respondents reported experiencing clinical
anxiety, mood or substance disorder (Auerbach et al., 2018). This survey, conducted by the
World Health Organization between October 2014 and February 2017, showed near-even
distribution of these mental health afflictions across all socio demographic categories, according
to Auerbach et al. (2018). Student mental health problems can impact academic performance,
central to the mission of colleges and universities. A survey of 2,798 students at a large U.S.
public university demonstrated a significant link between depression and anxiety versus lower

BUILDING COMMUNITY 4
GPA and higher probability of dropping out of college (Eisenberg et al, 2009). A longitudinal
study of 7,527 freshmen at KU Leuven, Belgium’s largest university, showed a 0.2-0.3 drop in
grade point average among those with mental health issues, compared with those who reported
no problems (Bruffaerts et al., 2018). While it is too soon to assess the long-term effects of the
current Covid-19 pandemic on student peer relationships and mental health, one early analysis
suggests that the situation may be further compounded. Interview surveys with 195
undergraduates conducted by Son et al. (2020) at Texas A&M University revealed that 71%
suffered increased stress and anxiety over the first three months of the pandemic (March through
May) and 86% experienced a reduction of social interaction caused by quarantine. As evidenced
by the data presented, the problem of interpersonal peer relationships affects the current
worldwide cohort of college students, which left unaddressed could result in long-term mental
health consequences for this global generation and those to come.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The problem of practice suggests a need for in-depth exploration of the undergraduate
experience. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory provides a model that proposes
analysis of a subject by mapping the various influences as they revolve around the subject: their
immediate microsystem; the mesosystem of various relationships; the exosystem that comprises
their community; and the macrosystem of societal norms and influences (Bronfenbrenner, 1992).
An important aspect of the model is to frame the subject in as much contextual focus to the
problem as possible. These settings include interpersonal experiences, patterns of activities,
physical and material features, as well as temperaments, personalities or belief systems of others
that may influence the subject (McLinden, 2017).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 5
For the specific problem of student interpersonal connections, the ecological systems
model (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) is well-suited for looking at relationships. For example, the
college student microsystem may include faculty, staff, teaching assistants, resident advisors, co-
workers, family, and of course student peers from all manner of classroom, student organization
and other activity contexts. The mesosystems that help form relationships might include the
student’s academic major, housing situation, employment status, and financial background.
While the subject may be profiled in terms of an individual, the context filled in by each of the
systems allows for a collective view of interactions that shape behavior, values, norms, and
experiences (Rose et al., 2019). The ecological systems model has proven useful in analysis of
peer relationships. A study of Native Americans in higher education utilized the ecological
systems model as framework to examine a range of Native American college student
relationships, including with peers, faculty, and family (Fish & Syed, 2018).
This study followed a qualitative methodology. The objective was to examine
undergraduate experiences and perceptions of peer connectedness. This approach aligns with
Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method, which is dependent upon rich first-person
accounts of experiences that may come from sources such as in-person interviews and written
narratives (Morrow et al., 2015). This phenomenological study involved face-to-face interviews,
review of secondary sources, and document/artifact analysis (Ataro, 2020). The subjects of the
study were student journalists of the campus newspaper at a large western university. An
interview protocol (see Appendix A) consisted of semi-structured questions that allowed
flexibility in the direction the interviews took (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thematic content
analysis sought to understand how students form interpersonal relationships with their peers
through their feelings, thoughts and lived experiences (Patton, 2002). Secondary data, consisting

BUILDING COMMUNITY 6
of surveys administered on the campus in recent years relating to student mental health and
wellness, were examined to provide context and triangulation to the interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts, in the form of published articles written by students on
the topics related to the study such as connectedness and mental health, also provided
triangulation and additional insight (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to student attitudes in their own
words, unprompted by interview questions.
Definitions
Key terms relating to the dissertation topic and the conceptual framework are defined in
this section.
Community
Community can be defined as either territorial and geographical, or relational (Gusfield,
1975). This study will focus on relational community. McMillan & Chavis (1986) identified four
elements that comprise a sense of community: A feeling of membership or belonging; a sense of
having meaningful influence on the group; a fulfillment of needs through participation in the
group; and a shared emotional connection through experiences with others in the group.
Research has shown that “deeper life interactions” centered around meaning, value and purpose
form strong psychological sense of community among college students (Sriram et al., 2020).
Peer Connectedness
A sense of belonging and personal bonding over relationships is the basis of student
connectedness (Rovai, 2002). In a study of undergraduates, Farrell et al. (2018) found that
students perceive the process of connectedness as non-linear and is achieved through overlapping
layers of established and new relationships that occur dynamically, ultimately the result of task
fulfillment and satisfaction of interpersonal needs.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 7
Engagement
Student engagement has been an active focus of scholars since the 1930s, expanding from
more narrow concepts of active learning tasks between students, peers and instructors that
directly reinforce classroom curriculum, to a broader continuum of synergistic interactions across
many campus activities that stimulate learning through motivation (Groccia, 2018). Research has
shown that student engagement is the strongest predictor of successful college learning and
development outcomes (Kuh, 2003).
Involvement
Student involvement is identified as the element of student engagement that represents
the physical and psychological efforts invested in the academic experience (Kuh, 2009). These
experiences can range from direct classroom projects and honors programs to campus activities
such as dorm life, fraternities and sororities, ROTC, athletics, and other extracurricular programs
(Ivanova & Moretti, 2018).
Social Penetration
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory proposes that students form
stronger relationships as their peer interactions grow more intense and personal. A study of
student intercultural and interracial dynamics demonstrated that friendships made as a result of
class project work were forged through increased communications and collaboration efforts that
the students otherwise would not have engaged with (Gareis, Goldman, & Merkin, 2019).
Autonomous Motivation
Students find autonomous motivation for an activity when they perceive themselves to be
the initiators of participation by their personal choices and interests (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).
Intrinsically, students are drawn to engagement for its own sake due to curiosity or perceived

BUILDING COMMUNITY 8
personal relevance, rather than the extrinsic motivation of a tangible reward such as payment or a
course grade (Noynes et al, 2017).
Campus Experience
When the student relationship with the institution includes a well-rounded mix of
academic and extracurricular activities, it has been shown to produce a positive influence on
learning, loyalty and persistence (Vianden, 2015). A study of freshmen demonstrated that the
range of campus experiences that correlate with successful learning outcomes include faculty
interactions, peer interactions, and organizational involvement (Liu & Chang, 2014).
Undergraduate Students
An environment offering optimal conditions for undergraduates to thrive will include
activities with a strong sense of shared purpose, support from administration and faculty,
adequate funding for individual initiatives, and on-going evaluation of program outcomes
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). A study examining levels of involvement showed that students
become more engaged as they have been on campus over a longer period of time (Hu & Kuh,
2002).
Assumptions
The assumptions this study was built upon begin with the limitations and delimitations of
qualitative research, the undergraduate student setting, and a constructive approach. The
researcher’s positionality was accounted for throughout the research and analysis process.
Generally accepted principles of human research ethics guided each stage of the study.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 9
Limitations
The interviews were subject to the limitations of much other qualitative research:
difficulty of replication by other researchers (Wiersma, 2000). The design of the study to
interview undergraduate subjects in and about their natural setting resulted in providing a
snapshot of a specific time frame and place. Untruthfulness or bias of the interview subjects is
also a concern with qualitative studies (Sikes, 2000).
Delimitations
There are several delimitations inherent within the scope, design, and execution of this
study (Simon & Goes, 2013), with the purpose of using the unique perspectives of the subjects to
uncover ways students form in-person peer connections. While the topic of in-person
connectedness is a problem across this identified age group, the ecological and engagement
frameworks utilized focused on a college undergraduate environment. The researcher’s access to
student journalists on one hand approached a narrow subject population, but on the other hand it
is a population which by definition observes, shares, and proved to hold opinions on a variety of
student narratives and experiences. In development of the research questions, the choice was
made to take the constructive approach of examining characteristics of positive peer
connectedness situations, as opposed to seeking out subjects with poor peer connections.
Researcher Positionality
The pragmatic worldview, which looks at the intersection of actions, situations, and
consequences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) aligns with examination of a problem involving the
social and psychological behaviors of young adults. My personal perspective within this
worldview is informed by professional and avocational experience working with people in their
late teens/early 20s age group in educational and recreational contexts. These life-long

BUILDING COMMUNITY 10
observations have formed personal assumptions that this age cohort makes stronger interpersonal
connections with peers through activities built around common, worthwhile goals.
Although I work in Student Affairs, I am in a support role to the students that were
recruited and did not have a supervisory relationship with them, nor do any of the colleagues that
students may have known that I work with. Therefore, I had no direct “power” issues with the
subjects. The use of students involved with student affairs-related organizations could be
considered a “backyard” approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) of studying subjects close to my
daily work environment. The rationale was to take advantage of the access to student journalists
who have their own unique position from which they follow and report on campus organizations
and events. I am aware that I have biases from my own experiences, but recruiting subjects with
a wide variety of backgrounds was not a challenge because student participation in the
newspaper organization is as diverse or in some respects more diverse than the general university
undergraduate student population. The student newspaper staff including editors skews
significantly female (last reported around 70%, which mirrors the enrollment of the university’s
school of journalism, but not the university at large, which for the 2021-22 school year was a
53%-47% female-male split; nationally 56%-44% in 2018), so subjects were recruited to reflect
the broader campus gender representation more closely.
As a white, male, upper middle-class college graduate who straddles the Baby Boom and
Generation X, I lack other perspectives in making interpersonal relationships such as female,
persons of color, first-generation or international students. Additionally, students who are less
open than others about their sexuality or gender may be guarded on different levels in making
peer connections. By incorporating reflexivity of my own perspectives into the research analysis
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), personal biases have been openly accounted for.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 11
Research Ethics
The ethics of this study were guided by the principles of the Belmont Report (1979),
which prioritizes protection of human subjects through respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice. The student subjects recruited were all autonomous agents. Informed consent for
participation in the study was obtained, by providing information about the purpose and design
of the study, ensuring comprehension of the information provided, and emphasizing that
participation in the study was voluntary. The interview topic on feelings of peer connectedness
presented minimal risk to the subjects, however subjects were cautioned that the discussion could
be psychologically triggering and that lines of questions or the entire interview could be
terminated at any time if they became uncomfortable. There were no direct benefits to the
subjects in participating in the study, and no incentives were offered. The subjects who were
recruited reflected diverse ethnic, racial, gender and financial backgrounds for findings and
recommendations to apply across a wide spectrum of the population. The researcher was
sensitive to interview questions that could seem culturally invasive to some subjects. Subject
identities have been kept confidential; pseudonyms have been used in findings; identifying
descriptive characteristics have been disguised; and digital recordings, transcriptions and other
interview notes will be destroyed when the final report is completed.
Summary
The intent of the study was to address issues of peer connectedness among the current
undergraduate college student age cohort that has been found to be experiencing increased
mental health problems that include depression, anxiety, and loneliness. The study utilized a
theoretical framework based on the ecological systems model applied to the college student
environment and conceptual framework developed from theories of student involvement, social

BUILDING COMMUNITY 12
penetration, and autonomous motivation. The study’s assumptions included limitations and
delimitations based around the qualitative investigation setting among undergraduate students,
the researcher’s positionality, and guiding ethical principles of human research.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter one of the dissertation provides an introduction to the study topic of
undergraduate peer connectedness, introduces the research questions, provides an overview of
the theoretical framework and research methodology, defines key terms utilized, and identifies
the significant assumptions that guided the course of the study, including researcher background.
Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature on the topic of student connectedness in the
context of the current and historical role of colleges and universities in American society, the
theoretical framework of undergraduate student ecological systems, and the conceptual
framework of peer relationship dynamics influenced by student engagement, involvement, and
motivation. Chapter Three explains the qualitative research methodology, including setting,
subjects, in-person interview protocol, secondary data, documents and artifacts, and analysis.
Chapter Four will present analysis of the research data. Chapter Five will consider
recommendations based on the findings of the study.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section will review current literature relevant to the topic of peer connectedness
among U.S. college undergraduates. Following the search description, the review begins with the
foundation and application of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems model as the study’s
theoretical framework, and then the conceptual framework utilizing theories of student
involvement, social penetration, and autonomous motivation. Next it places the U.S. collegiate
experience into historical context, including the role access to higher education has played in
societal evolution. Then the paper explores the various demographics, characteristics, qualities,
and attitudes that define the current undergraduate age cohort, including the effects of the Covid-
19 pandemic. Finally, there is an exploration of how student activities and organizations fit into
campus life, how they are perceived by students as well as the student affairs professionals that
administer them, and examples of programs that have provided meaningful engagement for
students.
Search Description
Research was conducted using search guides and resources of the USC Libraries, Google
Scholar academic search engine, ProQuest database, books, and peer reviewed journal articles.
Searches were based on the frameworks of the ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner,
1992), student involvement theory (Burch et al., 2015), social penetration theory (Carpenter &
Greene, 2015), and motivation and social integration (Noynes et al., 2017). Research reviewed
included the topics of student engagement, student involvement, peer connectedness, and campus
wellness and mental health. Aside from sources providing historical and theory development
contexts, an emphasis was placed on research generated within the last 10 years. Keywords,
themes and phrases used in searches on this topic included: college students, undergraduate

BUILDING COMMUNITY 14
experience, U.S. higher education access, In Loco Parentis, student involvement, student
organizations, intrinsic motivation, influences of mental health on academic performance, peer
relationship dynamics, Covid-19 student impact, mentorship, Generation Z, student affairs
administrators, benefits of extracurricular activities, community building, college campus DEI,
college first generation, and student intersectionality.
Theoretical & Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework of a study provides its scaffolding and empirical underpinning
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). A conceptual framework can build upon the theoretical framework
by constructing a system of multiple ideas, concepts, beliefs and assumptions that informs the
approach to the research design and analysis (Hughes et al., 2019). This section will explore the
frameworks utilized for the study.
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model
College students navigate a world of courses, activities, jobs, housing, social and family
situations that are interconnected and influenced directly or indirectly by institutions,
government, and societal trends. The ecological systems model developed by Bronfenbrenner
(1979) places subjects in the center of nested systems that are increasingly distal, micro to
macro. The model provides a holistic approach to evaluate the complex spheres of influence in
the undergraduate ecology, and the ways they are interrelated and impact undergraduates at
different levels, places, and times (Kitchen et al., 2019). Placing undergraduates as subjects at
the center of the model, they carry various characteristics and attitudes from life experiences
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979), such as gender, language, ethnic culture, nationality, and personality
traits (Fig. 1). Immediately surrounding the subject is their microsystem, which Bronfenbrenner
(1979) defines as the roles, activities and other patterns immediately influencing the ecological

BUILDING COMMUNITY 15
setting. For students this may include family, friends, college faculty and staff, cultural or social
organizations they may be involved with, as well as other student peers. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
next level mesosystem is defined as the relationships between multiple settings within the
environment. Examples of mesosystems for college students may be their major, campus
employment, housing or financial situation. The mesosystem is further defined by Onwuegbuzie
et al., (2013) as the intersections that provide context and connection to the subjects’
microsystems. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines the exosystem settings as outside a subject’s
environment but with a direct effect on them as part of their community. For students the
exosystem may include campus resources such as a health center, student government, or
popular online social media sites. The macrosystem is the highest level of the environment,
which consist of the societal elements that make up the cultural context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
The macrosystem may include laws and policies, campus location, tuition cost, and traditions of
the college. One additional level is the chronosystem, which provides a third dimension of time
to the nested micro-, exo-, and macrosystems (Renn, 2003). Examples of the chronosystem may
be a student’s progressive class standing from freshman to senior; involvement of alumni from
different eras; or cycles of faculty, staff, and administrators in the life of the institution.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 16
Figure 1
Ecological System Model – College Undergraduate
(Adapted from: Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.)

Based on the model, the study of personal development and relationships is best
conducted in the ecological context: where subjects are living their lives (Bronfenbrenner &

BUILDING COMMUNITY 17
Morris, 2007). The ecological systems model is interactive, accounting for influences to and
from its various levels, making it useful for examining and developing change interventions in
peer culture situations such as substance abuse or sexual misconduct (Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Contextualizing the relations between people and their environments, such as the increasingly
heterogeneous U.S. undergraduate culture, allows for a more complex study of student-peer
dynamics (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Personal development occurs, according to Renn & Arnold
(2003), when subjects participate in complex actions and tasks, exhibiting across four
developmentally instigative characteristics: Invite/inhibit responsiveness from the environment;
selective responsivity, in which students either actively participate with group activities or are
more solitary; structuring proclivities, relating to how students engage and persist in activities;
and directive beliefs, which is how students may perceive their personal agency in the context of
a specific environment. Examples of complex student-peer group activities outside of the
classroom include student government, activism, or community service, including interaction
with older students or alumni (Renn & Arnold, 2003). For these activities to be effective for peer
development, they must be progressively intense interactions, more complex than simple
repetition (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007).
Ecology of the Undergraduate Student
Although defining the elements that comprise the undergraduate ecology is a fairly
straightforward exercise, each student’s environment will be different based on the variety of
characteristics that will populate those elements. Not only does the specific personality mix of
family, friends, and peers that a student has inform their individual microsystem, but also the
varying ways that mix of people may influence their daily lives (Jones, 2018). Students sharing
the same or overlapping microsystem may respond and develop differently based on their own

BUILDING COMMUNITY 18
background characteristics; and their mesosystems of relationships can offer different messages
or stimulus based on the context, such as a specific course, student organization, work, or sports
team (Renn, 2003). Minority students may experience affirming or exclusionary interactions
within their microsystems, such as among coworkers or supervisors in a part-time job (Vacarro
& Koob, 2015). These opportunities for interaction may be structured initiatives, such as
educational programs, cultural events or social activities; or informal, unstructured initiatives
such as jokes, peer discussions, graffiti, or even visibility of faculty, staff or administrators at
events (Vacarro & Koob, 2015). The macrosystem is dependent on time, place, and culture, with
a student’s decisions about attending college influenced by a variety of societal trends: attitudes,
accessibility, geography, or portability (Renn, 2003). Other contexts that affect the macrosystem
are the institutional characteristics, such as its size, mission, curriculum, history, or policies
(Vacarro & Koob, 2015). Within the chronosystem, the outer dimension of the model that
reflects time, students are distinctively shaped by the era in which they attended college (Renn &
Arnold, 2003). For the current undergraduate cohort, the Covid-19 pandemic stands as the
defining event of their era.
Undergraduates can become engaged or alienated from their environment, based on their
individual interests and background (Renn, 2003). Students find congruence in their peer
relationships between microsystems where their values are modeled, and behaviors reflect their
aspirations (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Based on Renn & Arnold’s (2003) measure of centrality, the
more complex that students build the peer networks within their environments, overlapping into
multiple microsystems, the more likely students are to acquire skills, knowledge, confidence and
persist in school and beyond.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 19
Conceptual Framework: Undergraduate Peer Relationships Dynamics
Incorporating the environmental systems model with three theories related to student
engagement and motivation, the study will look at the problem with an emerging conceptual
framework that may be called undergraduate peer relationship dynamics (Fig. 2). With
Bronfenbrenner’s model applied to the undergraduate setting as a starting point, students get
involved with in-person activities based on interests and a variety of environmental factors.
Student involvement theory (Astin, 1984) proposes that multi-discipline programs enhance the
college experience. Burch et al. (2015) identify three factors that facilitate student involvement:
Emotional engagement, physical engagement, and cognitive engagement (either in-classroom or
out-of-classroom). Students make peer connections through this involvement, based on social
penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1975). The quality of the engagement influences the
intensity of relationships formed. In the “onion” model of social penetration theory developed by
Carpenter and Greene (2016), students work through deepening layers of connectedness as
relationships form, from superficial acquaintance to close friendships and romantic attachment.
Social integration has shown to be an important ingredient to student motivation. As
students form relationships in college, feelings of relatedness and connections to peers provide
more willingness for involvement in more difficult tasks and activities (Noynes et al., 2017).
Experiences engaged in for volition and choice become autonomous motivation (Vansteenkiste
et al., 2006). Autonomous motivation can be further defined as intrinsic motivation -- the
accomplishment of tasks for reasons such as personal growth, relationships, or community – and
identified regulation – where the student identifies a need for a particular course of action to
attain personal goals (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Positive peer connections and relationships
that students form through progressively stronger engagement in activities and organizations

BUILDING COMMUNITY 20
from autonomous motivation has a reciprocal effect on the organizations. Ganotice et al. (2020)
found that autonomous motivation is a strong predictor of successful team outcomes and
membership engagement.
Figure 2

Review of Research
The remainder of this chapter reviews current literature based on the theoretical
framework of the college undergraduate environment and the conceptual framework of
undergraduate peer relationship dynamics. It begins by placing the U.S. undergraduate
experience in historical context. The contemporary collegiate environment is then discussed,
including demographic trends, the current Generation Z student cohort, and campus mental

BUILDING COMMUNITY 21
health and wellness trends. It looks at factors influencing student peer connectedness, and the
effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The concluding portion of the review considers the important
role campus professionals play in providing programs and opportunities for student engagement
and growth.
The U.S. College Undergraduate Experience
The U.S. university dates to the founding of Harvard College in 1636 by a nucleus of
Oxford and Cambridge alumni (Rudolph, 2021). The number of institutions of higher learning
increased as colonial and subsequent national population and territory grew over the next 250
years. However, it was philosophies and structural foundations put in place by the end of the 19
th

century that set the stage for the modern U.S. system of higher education and the unique student
experience delivered on American campuses.
Expanded Access
Throughout its history, the U.S. has progressively expanded access to education across
age, class distinction, gender, and ethnicity. By 1910, the U.S. led Western societies as the most
educated country at all age cohorts, with 91% of the population completing primary school,
compared with France, the next closest at 86% (Rubinson, 1986). The U.S. put its stamp on the
European university model through the populist ideals of expanding higher education access to
more levels of society. Populist sentiments that higher education should be more accessible to
rural and working-class populations of a far-flung nation resulted in the Morrill Act of 1862 that
established the land grant colleges (Gelber, 2011). This legislation provided funding and
structure for every state to form institutions that included liberal arts, vocational and trade
curriculum. At the same time, established elite colleges began to allow less qualified students to
enroll in programs (Gelber, 2011). Prior to the Civil War and the end of slavery in the south,

BUILDING COMMUNITY 22
colleges for Black Americans were founded in the north as early as 1837 (Haynes, 2006), with
funding and efforts from churches, free African Americans, abolitionists, missionaries, and other
religious organizations (Pifer, 1973). The “second” Morrill Act of 1890 specifically strengthened
the network of today’s historically Black colleges and universities, directing that government
funds for education must include African Americans and launching the “1890 Colleges.” This
mandate also helped enshrine a system of segregation in states with public HBCUs that existed
until the Civil Rights Movement (Brown & Davis, 2001).
As the efforts to provide educational opportunities for less privileged U.S. citizens came
to fruition, by the beginning of the 20
th
century there were more U.S. students enrolled in higher
education than any other country (Ramirez & Christensen, 2012). This mass access continued to
be refined through policies at the secondary and college levels. College prep programs in
secondary schools evolved to a common curriculum, with students empowered to change tracks
and make other decisions based on their academic strengths and preferences as they progressed
to higher education, as opposed to some more rigid European systems that lock students into
vocational paths early in the secondary levels (Rubinson, 1986). Collaboration between colleges
and universities allowed for development of a relatively flexible system of elective and portable
credits, which eased transfer between institutions and provided linkage to the growing
community college system (Trow, 2000). By the 1970s, enrollment in U.S. higher education was
36% of the age 20-24 cohort, three times the enrollment of the next closest western country
(Rubinson, 1986).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 23
Evolution of Campus Culture
In addition to the obvious educational benefits, the U.S. college experience, with its high
enrollment penetration, has a powerful effect on the social development of the undergraduate age
cohort.
"Colleges profess to be, and often are, civilizing agencies; they work to
develop and refine the powers of intellect, perception, and feeling" (Clark and
Trow 1966, p. 19)
Student culture on campuses reflect the societal conditions of the times. Students identify and
internalize role models, which in the first half of the 20
th
century prioritized aspirations to
improve economic and social class (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). In the era after World War II, the
transformational G.I. bill opened higher education to even greater access by veterans
representing a wide swath of the population that would not have otherwise attended college
(Olson, 1973). The U.S. college experience became more universal and the cultural
distinctiveness and attitudes among college students, and subsequently alumni, had narrowed in
the U.S. more than any other country by the 1970s (Kuh & Whitt, 1988).
In this environment of expanding collegiate access, student life on campuses evolved
with changes in societal attitudes. A key principle that governed residential colleges for more
than a century was In Loco Parentis, which put colleges and universities in a legal
guardian/protector role to students living away from home, including past the age of 18. Colleges
set regulations for student residents prescribing such behavior as social gatherings, curfew,
alcohol use and campus visitors. A fallout from a series of due process rulings during the U.S.
civil rights era and the campus free speech movement was the erosion of In Loco Parentis (Lee,
2011). Correspondingly, courts have continued to recognize and expand the rights of college

BUILDING COMMUNITY 24
students 18 years and older in the last several decades (Ivanova & Moretti, 2018), such as
decisions about access to academic or medical records. Despite the abandonment of In Loco
Parentis as a legal concept in the institution-college student relationship, what remained were the
trappings that continue to contribute to the unique undergraduate student-centric U.S. college
campus environment: relatively low student-faculty/staff ratios and many “paraeducator”
positions in support roles such as counselors, dormitory “resident advisors,” student affairs
professionals and tutors (Trow, 2000).
Benefits of Involvement in Student Organizations
Involvement in student extracurricular organizations and activities are known to provide
valuable enhancement to the undergraduate classroom experience and help foster connectedness
to peers and the campus community. Structured activities provide high-quality experiences that
help students form connections and adjust to campus life, with “high quality” defined as
activities imparting positive feelings, perceived as having importance to the student, and
providing peer connectedness (Tieu et al., 2010). A 2007 freshman study showed that intensity
of involvement in campus activities incrementally improves student feelings of connectedness to
campus and peers, with benefits including less loneliness, greater social satisfaction, improved
interpersonal skills, and better quality of friendships (Kinfsend, 2020). Research shows that
programs where students feel valued are particularly productive. A mixed method study of an
east coast public university freshman seminar and learning community by Hoffman et al. (2002)
involving approximately 500 students in focus groups and an additional survey of 205 found
activities formed around common challenges, stressors and agendas helped facilitate student
sense of belonging, where they felt part of a group, where the members were valued and valued
each other. In a longitudinal study of 340 undergraduates between 2013 and 2016, Billingsley

BUILDING COMMUNITY 25
and Hurd (2019) found that participation in extracurricular activities improved mental health and
academic success among underrepresented or marginalized student populations on
predominantly white campuses but did not help mitigate feelings of discrimination.
Studies have shown that the benefits from undergraduate engagement have lifelong
impact. A study of more than 5,000 students across 47 institutions with a liberal arts focus
indicated that participation in campus-directed activities improved cognitive growth and critical
thinking (Martin et al., 2020). In a national survey of hiring managers, 90% cited college
experiences as at least “somewhat important” for encouraging interactions with diverse people,
and 86% noted the value of collegiate extracurricular experiences for encouraging students to
engage in communities (Finley, 2021).
Undergraduate Environment
Demographic Trends
In 2018, there were 19.7 million students enrolled in 2-year or 4-year degree programs in
the United States, representing 40.9% of all 18-24-year-olds (Debrey et al., 2021). Females
comprised 57% of total enrollment, accounting for 44.3% of all females in the age group and
37.6% of males. The highest ethnic group enrollment was Asian, at 59% of their total age group
population, and the smallest ethnic enrollment was Pacific Islander and Native American, each
below 25%. Since 2010, enrollment has held steady or declined in most categories. Notably,
there has been a significant increase in Latinx enrollment over this period, 27.5% to 35.9%
overall; 31% to 40.4% among Latinx women; and 24.2% to 31.6% for Latinx men. Noguera and
Fergus (2013) note that Latinx men are overrepresented in more populous states (California,
New York, Illinois) in service industry jobs and incarceration, yet remain underrepresented

BUILDING COMMUNITY 26
nationally in college enrollment. The U.S. hosts over one million foreign students, 70% of
which are from Asian nations (DeBrey et al., 2021).
Table 1
U.S. College Enrollment 2010-2018
Category 2010 2018
Total % of 18-24-year-old Total % of 18-24-yr
(millions) U.S. population U.S. population
All 21 41.2% 19.7 40.9%
Female 11.9 44.1% 11.4 44.3%
Male 9.1 38.3% 8.2 37.6%
White 12.7 43.3% 10.3 42.3%
Female 7.1 46.1% 5.8 45.4%
Male 5.6 40.6% 4.5 39.1%
Black 3.1 38.4% 2.5 37.2%
Female 2 41.4% 1.6 40.9%
Male 1.1 35.2% .9 33.3%
Latinx 2.7 31.9% 3.6 35.9%
Female 1.6 36.1% 2.1 40.4%
Male 1.1 27.9% 1.5 31.6%
Asian 1.3 63.6% 1.4 59%%
Native American .19 41.4% .13 24.2%

BUILDING COMMUNITY 27
(Source: De Brey, C., Snyder, T.D., Zhang, A., and Dillow, S.A. (2021). Digest of Education
Statistics 2019 (NCES 2021-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.)
First generation students, defined as students with no history of family members
attending college, represented nearly one in five (19.4%) of fall 2019 freshmen (Stolzenberg et
al., 2020), with the largest segment Latinx (34%). Diversity efforts on college campuses have
included a focus on recruitment, support and tracking of first-generation students, with the group
considered particularly at-risk of dropping out due to such issues as less academic preparation,
family who may be supportive but unfamiliar with their college-bound students’ needs, and
unrealistic expectations about the college experience (Dennis et al., 2005).
Generation Z
The current college-age generation falls into what has become known as Generation Z,
which followed the much-documented millennial generation that came of age at the turn of the
21st century. Key influences defining this cohort include technology, societal unrest, activism,
and most recently the Covid-19 pandemic. The members of “Gen Z '' were born between 1995
and 2010, growing up in an era where technological advances provided them with greater access
to information than any previous generation (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). Social media and the
smartphone were introduced before the oldest of this generation reached their teen years,
producing an environment where they have always been “tethered” to technology and constantly
connected to family and friends (Camfield et al., 2020). A significant stereotype of Gen Z has
been one of privilege and protection by their largely post-baby boom Generation X “helicopter
parents'' (Camfield et al., 2020). Societal movements of the last decade, such as Black Lives
Matter and environmental concerns, have instilled a strong sense of activism within Gen Z, who

BUILDING COMMUNITY 28
are champions for social justice and climate change initiatives (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). Two
less obvious influences on this generation are constant pressure to live up to a “perfect is
possible'' ideal of their parents, and a perpetual fear of being “unsafe” caused by such events
introduced into their institutional routines as school lockdowns and active shooter drills
(Camfield et al., 2020). Despite activist leanings that have exhibited a “we” centered,
collaborative mentality, Gen Z also showed a preference for technology-supported,
individualized intrapersonal learning techniques, such as watching videos or online readings
(Seemiller & Grace, 2017). The most common majors for Gen Z incoming college freshmen in
2019 included health professions, biological sciences, engineering, business, and social science
(Stolzenberg et al., 2020).
Campus Mental Health and Wellness
Mental health among U.S. college students declined dramatically in the last decade.
Based on the Healthy Minds Study of nearly 360,000 students across 373 campuses, overall
mental health, defined for individual students on an eight-item flourishing scale, dropped from
56.2% flourishing in 2013 to 37.9% in 2021; depression rose from 17.4% to 40.1%; anxiety from
16.6% to 34.8%; and ideas of suicide from 8.2% to 13.5% (Lipson et al., 2022). All racial/ethnic
groups experienced declines, with Native Americans experiencing the strongest drops (Lipson et
al., 2022). In a different study, the self-described emotional health of incoming freshmen
declined significantly between 2015 and 2020, dropping from 59% to 51% for freshmen men and
43% to 34% for freshmen women (Stolzenberg et al., 2020).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 29
Table 2
U.S. College Student Mental Health Trends 2013-2021
Condition 2013 2021 Point Change % Change
Flourishing 52.6% 37.9% -18.2 - 32.5%
Depression 17.4% 40.8% +23.4 +134.6%
Anxiety 16.6% 34.8% +18.2 +109.5%
Suicide Ideation 8.2% 13.5% + 5.3 + 64.0%
(Source: Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., Abelson, S., Heinze, J., Jirsa, M., Morigney, J., ... & Eisenberg,
D. (2022). Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: Findings
from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021. Journal of Affective Disorders, 306, 138-
147.)
New students are of particular concern in the undergraduate cohort. One-third of students
in two-year and four-year colleges drop out during the transition from their first-to-second year,
and those who continue report that stressors during their academic careers include burnout,
exhaustion, and inefficacy (Kinsfsend, 2020). A common contributor to first-year student
loneliness is friendsickness, which occurs due to separation from friendships during the high
school-to-college transition (Paul & Brier, 2001). Social media networks and other technologies
have shown to be a means of support to students enduring friendsickess in their new colleges,
allowing them to be in contact with friends and family remotely (Manago & Vaughn, 2015;
Booker et al., 2021). Mental health trends among U.S. undergraduates are generally directional
but are not monolithic from campus to campus. There are multiple individual, interpersonal, and
institutional factors that can influence student mental health (Byrd & McKinney, 2012), such as

BUILDING COMMUNITY 30
the mix of student demographics, campus size, or counseling and other student support resources
available.
Student Connectedness Issues
There exist many avenues to facilitate student connectedness through the campus
environment. According to Jorgenson et al. (2018) positive social habits influence
connectedness, such as emotional well-being, good health, minimal substance abuse, combatting
depression, and decreasing risk of violent or deviant behavior. While students are often
encouraged to get involved in a wide variety of organizations and activities to build a large social
network, studies show that deeper, high-quality relationships help build stronger connections
than a broad range of less casual relationships (Jorgenson et al., 2018). While it may be difficult
to precisely quantify the types of extracurricular involvement that may be more beneficial to
academic performance and retention, one distinction can be drawn to highlight organizations that
may require qualification, membership, and responsibilities, as opposed to passive events that are
largely freeform and require little more than for students to show up (Kulp et al., 2021).
Motivation Factors
The current Gen Z student cohort is motivated by peer collaboration and sense of
accomplishment. The group wants to advocate for the things they believe in and make a
difference in the world, while exhibiting a distaste for competition and shying away from public
recognition (Seemiller, 2017). They have a strong sense of commitment and responsibility in a
group dynamics setting, like to receive credit for working toward larger goals, seek opportunities
for personal advancement, and are keen to not let others down (Seemiller, 2017).
First generation students find a particularly strong motivation from peers. Since they tend
to be drawn to college more for personal growth, curiosity, and financial desire than by family

BUILDING COMMUNITY 31
obligation, the first gen college peer group provides instrumental support that families without a
college cultural background may be unable to adequately give (Dennis et al., 2005).
Effects of Covid-19 pandemic
The impact of the pandemic on the college sector continues to be a subject of research
study, including this dissertation, but the first reports that have emerged paint a devastating
picture of the college student environment. Enrollment in colleges declined by 7.4%, or 1.3
million students, between the onset of the pandemic remote learning environment in March 2020
and spring 2022 (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). In the early months of
the shut-down, a survey of 645 college students reported feeling lack of control, anger, stress
from their living situation, loneliness, depression, and concerns about their isolated social status,
with more than half admitting to at least periodic crying fits (Birmingham et al., 2021). As
campuses emptied their residence halls, many students who returned home for remote studies
encountered unanticipated challenges and distress. Many households were subject to increased
domestic violence during the pandemic while at the same time students were met with
expectations to take on caregiver responsibilities for younger siblings, older relatives, or family
members who were sick or at risk of covid exposure (Lederer et al., 2021). Additionally, there
was increased anxiety from concerns that family and close friends were engaging in risky health
behavior (Charles et al., 2021). Students who were unable to go home and/or stayed in their
college housing were subject to food insecurity and overall isolation (Lederer et al., 2021).
The pandemic exposed many inequities. Most students of color who sought mental health
services said they were more difficult to access during the pandemic (Lederer et al., 2021).
Females suffered disproportionate levels of mood disorder and risky alcohol consumption
(Charles et al., 2021). White students displayed greater levels of anger, anxiety, stress, and

BUILDING COMMUNITY 32
alcohol use than Black students, indicating a resilience from Black students possibly linked to
greater stressors and challenges in their everyday lives prior to the pandemic (Charles et al.,
2021). Presumably due to a lack of mental health resources, less access to a supportive social
network, and a demonstrated focus on large population centers in preventive efforts during the
pandemic, students in rural regions worldwide suffered greater depression and anxiety than those
in urban areas (Elharake et al., 2022).
Student Engagement Dynamics
Involvement outside the classroom has shown benefits to student academic performance,
such as a longitudinal study of undergraduates at Sacramento State University which revealed
positive connection between extracurricular participation, GPA, and graduation rates, including
among students considered at risk or in need of remediation (Wang & Shiveley, 2009). For first-
year students, extracurricular activities exhibit a positive influence on literacy and cognitive
development; for students in their final year of college, involvement in activities tends to help
improve motivation (Martin et al., 2020). Involvement is a positive, reciprocal process between
the student and the organization. As students become engaged with campus activities, they build
relationships that encourage their increased participation, which in turn strengthens the
organization (Jorgenson et al., 2018).
At the outset of their college careers, most students anxiously look forward to quickly
getting involved in new and diverse activities, however once they arrive on campus they may
initially gravitate to familiar groups and settings (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Many colleges have
events to spotlight various clubs and organizations to promote involvement, but despite elaborate
strategies some students still struggle to seek out the organizations where their interests may lie.
The institutional structure and the way organizations fit into it may not align with student

BUILDING COMMUNITY 33
perceptions of their campus experiences (Jorgenson et al., 2018). A study of student participation
suggests that there is a core group of connectors, perhaps better described to the current
undergraduate generation as “influencers,” who may comprise around 20% of the student
population, that promote and foster campus culture to the broader student community (Kulp et
al., 2021).
Professional Engagement
Often professionals in student affairs and other extracurricular departments have
extended opportunities in working with students. Faculty within student academic majors may
only have contact with those students during discrete academic terms or school years when they
are enrolled in their courses, whereas staff that support institution-wide student organizations and
activities may work with those same students across multiple years of their enrollment (Martin et
al., 2020).
Transformational Strategies
Dungy and Peck (2019) encourage professionals responsible for campus activities to
embrace and pursue the transformational aspect of co-curricular engagement. This approach
focuses on programs that help students develop, learn, and grow, beyond the mere transactional
college pursuit of degree completion (Dungy & Peck, 2019). By removing barriers to
engagement based on race, gender, or social class (King et al., 2021), professionals create a
“transitional space” where students can develop resilience and test their independence before
moving on to professional environments and careers after graduation. A study of 5,056
undergraduates across 46 U.S. 4-year college institutions between 2006 and 2012 showed that
programs in these transitional spaces, through guidance and collaboration of faculty and staff,
allow for teachable moments, interactions that encourage cognitive growth, and “opportunities to

BUILDING COMMUNITY 34
fail” that result in development of critical thinking skills (Martin et al., 2020). Such programs
promote stronger student connectedness to the institution. Student engagement in extracurricular
activities was associated with perceptions of greater faculty and staff support, based on a Gallup-
Purdue survey of 5,684 U.S. college students who graduated between 2000 and 2015 (Raposa et
al., 2021).
Mentorship
Mentoring has been shown to be an effective method for helping students navigate the
college experience and gain a sense of belonging, particularly among at-risk categories such as
underrepresented minorities, first generation, or non-traditional students like veterans or
commuters (Raposa et al., 2021). Involvement with mentors provides students with positive
interactions that make them feel more integrated as valued members of the campus community
(Nora & Crisp, 2007). First-year students experiencing mental health issues such as stress or
anxiety can also benefit from a mentor resource (Tsang, 2020). Based on the Gallup-Purdue data,
Raposa et al. (2021) suggest that engagement in peer-oriented extracurricular activities can give
students from traditionally marginalized backgrounds more confidence and feelings of campus
connectedness to seek mentor opportunities from institutional faculty and staff.
Successful Student Engagement Practices
Impactful engagement programs can comprise significant aspects of the collegiate
experience. In a study of Harvard undergraduates, when students were asked to name a specific,
profound moment during their time at college, 80% referenced an experience that occurred
outside of the classroom (Light, 2004). The types of campus activities that are well suited to
provide these experiences are environments where participants feel challenged, supported, and
cared for (Dungy & Peck, 2019). Engagement programs with a focus on DEI not only support

BUILDING COMMUNITY 35
the more vulnerable or at-risk populations, but also enrich experiences for all participants.
Students who interact in diverse groups perceive their involvement as more positive and
supportive, and tend to engage in deeper learning experiences, with those in leadership roles
having the most interactions with diverse groups of peers (Kinzie & Hurtado, 2017). Harper and
Quaye (2014) note that specifically involving students in decision-making provides them with a
sense of ownership and belonging. An example of organizational involvement which meets these
criteria is a campus event programming board, where students plan complex activities,
collaborate with other groups, and may work with advising faculty or staff (Dungy & Peck,
2019).
There are institutional benefits for actively creating and promoting opportunities for
student involvement. In one study of graduates, when students perceived that their college had
prepared them for life after graduation, they felt an emotional attachment to the institution and
were more likely to be “thriving” on a multi-factor wellbeing scale (Dungy & Peck, 2019).
Given the evidence of enhancement to the campus educational experience and corresponding
positive effects on institutional reputation, it is in the interest of academic units, student affairs
professionals, and other campus administrators to actively find ways to engage diverse
populations on campus in purposeful co-curricular or extracurricular activities (Quaye & Harper,
2014). Kinzie and Hurtado (2017) recommend that assessment of engagement activities include:
time and percentage of individual students involved; extent of collaboration with peers; and
proportion of programs that would be considered high impact, such as internships, service-
learning, or study abroad.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 36
Conclusion
This literature review provided an examination of the background and issues involving
undergraduate student connectedness. The theoretical framework of this study, Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems model, provides a method for defining the environmental elements of the
college undergraduate, understanding the interactive nature between these elements, and
exploring the infinite variety to each student’s experience. The conceptual framework developed
for this study, undergraduate peer relationship dynamics, shows that within the undergraduate
environment, student connectedness develops through levels of organizational involvement,
social engagement, and autonomous motivation Placed in historical context, the U.S. college
experience has traditionally been a strong influence in generational development, with a greater
percentage of U.S. population attending colleges and universities than any other western country.
A unique, defining characteristic of U.S. higher education has been a student-centric approach
with the flexibility to move between institutions and change course of study. Extracurricular
involvement has been shown to enhance classroom studies and help build a sense of belonging to
peer communities and connectedness to the institution. The current college-age cohort,
Generation Z, has been strongly influenced by rapidly evolving communications technologies
and activism. College campuses have tracked significant declines in student mental health over
the last decade. The Covid-19 pandemic stands as the overwhelming societal event for this
college cohort and has left a mark on all aspects of student development. Campus professionals
involved with Student Affairs and other co-curricular activities are well-positioned to provide
programs that promote engagement, diversity, mentoring, peer interactions, and other growth
opportunities that show positive influence on student mental health and foster strong sense of
community.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the qualitative research design for the study, methodology, use of
documents/artifacts and secondary data for triangulation, and alignment with theoretical and
conceptual framework. The purpose of this study is to identify characteristics of undergraduate
motivational engagement that influence development of interpersonal connections with peers,
and recommend factors based on those characteristics for student affairs professionals to
consider when designing new programs or strengthening existing programs on college campuses
that can improve development of student connectedness with their peers.
Overview of Design
The study utilized qualitative methodology to understand the feelings, thoughts and lived
experience (Patton, 2002) of undergraduate students as they relate to forming interpersonal peer
relationships. This phenomenological study of peer connectedness sought students’ experiences
and perceptions through in-person interviews (Ataro, 2020). An interview protocol of semi-
structured questions was followed to flexibly allow unexpected directions, concepts, and new
insights from students on the topic of connectedness to be explored (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Analysis of the data allowed for interpretation of themes and patterns that form from the
interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Secondary data, consisting of recent campus surveys
that explored student wellness and mental health, was utilized to add context to the interview
results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts were collected that provided
additional sources of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All of the student journalist subjects of the
study wrote published opinion or news articles that related directly to the topics of personal
wellness, mental health and peer connectedness (Appendix C). These writings offered timely,
unprompted insights into student attitudes that supplemented qualitative interviews.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 38
Research Questions
The objective in development of qualitative research questions is to explore the concepts
of the phenomenon under study through broad, varied perspectives of the participants (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). The research questions were guided by the theoretical framework of the
ecological system model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) applied to the college undergraduate
environment, and structured to generate themes within the conceptual framework dynamics of
student involvement theory (Burch at al., 2015), social penetration theory (Carpenter & Greene,
2015), and autonomous motivation (Noynes et al., 2017).
RQ1. How do undergraduate students perceive peer connectedness and motivation?
RQ2. How does peer connectedness impact undergraduates’ motivation and their campus
experience?
RQ3. What are the challenges to peer connectedness and motivation for undergraduates?
RQ4. How can motivational peer connectedness on campuses be improved?
Research Setting
Within U.S. higher education, there were nearly 20 million undergraduates enrolled at
degree-granting institutions in the fall of 2018, representing more than 40% of 18–24-year-olds.
(DeBray et al., 2021). The setting for this study was a comprehensive research university in the
western U.S. with a large undergraduate population. Interviews were conducted among student
journalists of the campus newspaper on this university campus. Documents/artifacts in the form
of articles written by the subjects and published in the student newspaper were analyzed.
Secondary data from student surveys on wellness and wellbeing conducted by the university was
also utilized.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 39
Participants
This section will define the target population for the study, explain the sample and
sampling method, and describe the participant recruitment process.
Target and Accessible Population
The target population was undergraduate students in U.S. universities. There were nearly
20 million undergraduates enrolled at U.S. degree-granting institutions in the fall of 2018,
representing more than 40% of 18–24-year-old (DeBray et al., 2021). The accessible population
was undergraduate students in western U.S. colleges. The criteria for participation in the study
was current undergraduates actively involved in campus organizations able to share successful
student engagement experiences.
Sample
Nine undergraduate students were selected for qualitative interviews. The study drew
from the student population of approximately 200 reporters, photographers, editors, and other
active contributors participating on the staff of the campus newspaper. These are student
journalists who, by the nature of their involvement, report stories happening in a variety of
organizations, activities, and events across the university community. In describing student
newspaper culture in the International Handbook of Higher Education, Altbach (2007) notes that
student journalists tend to be tight-knit groups who work long hours in organizations that are
usually among the largest and most active on campus. University fundraising personnel have
recognized student publications as among the extracurricular activities that produce loyal alumni
donors due to connections to campus that students build in pursuit of their publication
assignments (Monk, 2003).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 40
The student newspaper staff reflects a strong diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, financial
background, and other dimensions (Fig. 3, Staff survey, Fall 2022). The structure of this
particular campus newspaper is independent from the university’s journalism school, instead
falling within the university-wide division of student affairs, and thereby encouraging
participation from students with a variety of majors.
Figure 3
Student Newspaper Staff Demographics, Fall Semester 2022
(Source: Staff Survey)
Sampling Method
Using purposeful sampling that considered the need for a range of backgrounds and
experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), subjects invited to participate reflected the diversity of

BUILDING COMMUNITY 41
the campus population. The choice of subjects was from among all staff positions: reporters,
photographers, artists, graphic designers, and editors. The nine students invited to participate
completed a representative range of characteristics including gender, ethnicities, geographic
origin, family history (economics, first generation), academic major and class standing.
Recruitment
The primary method of recruitment was in-person discussion with students who visited
the newsroom during their participation on the newspaper staff, with follow-up by e-mail that
included formal invitation and details about participation in the study (see Appendix E,
Appendix F). Some advance observation of the newspaper setting, including informal
conversations with prospective subjects and review of individual contributions to the publication,
such as articles published by the prospective subjects, was utilized to identify a diverse set of
campus knowledge and interests (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection
The following section begins with an introduction to the data sources and how each
source supports the research questions. Next is an explanation of the data collection process for
each source: interview protocol, demographic survey, secondary data, and documents/artifacts.
The section concludes with the data handling procedures that were followed.
Data Sources
One-on-one interviews were the primary data source. The interviews were supplemented
by secondary data of wellness survey results that provided triangulation to the interview data.
Documents and artifacts, specifically published newspaper articles by student subjects, provided
context to themes that arose from the interviews (Table 3). Data collection involved four data

BUILDING COMMUNITY 42
collection points: a participant demographic survey (Appendix B), Interview Protocol (Appendix
A), Secondary Data (Appendix D) and Document Analysis/Artifacts (Appendix C).
Table 3
Data Sources
Research Questions Interview
Protocol
Demographic
Survey
Secondary
Data
Documents/Artifacts

RQ1. How do
undergraduate
students perceive
peer connectedness
and motivation?
IQ #’s
1, 10, 15,
16
DQ #’s 1-7 Articles A, B, D, E
RQ2. How does
peer connectedness
impact
undergraduates’
motivation and their
campus experience?
IQ #’s
2, 3, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10,
13, 14, 16
DQ #’s 1-7 Climate
Survey
Wellness
survey
A, B, C, H, I
RQ3. What are the
challenges to peer
connectedness and
motivation for
undergraduates?
IQ #’s
3, 4, 5,
12, 13, 16
DQ #’s 1-7 Wellness
Survey
A, C, E, F
RQ4. How can
motivational peer
connectedness on
campuses be
improved?
IQ #’s
3, 7, 8,
16, 17
DQ #’s 1-7 B, C, G, H

BUILDING COMMUNITY 43
Interview Protocol
The primary data source of the study was qualitative, semi-structured, one-on-one
interviews (Appendix A). The purpose of interviewing subjects was to obtain insight to their
behavior, feelings, and interpretations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2019) of engaging with fellow
students in campus organization settings. The interview protocol was based on grounded theory
of student interactions, views, and experiences (Moon et al., 2016) with in-person peer
engagement.
The approach to the interview protocol was semi-structured, with a list of questions that
were used somewhat flexibly (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The standardized open-ended questions
were detailed and asked as closely as possible to the way they were written (Patton, 2002), with
some flexibility to take probes in unexpected directions. Nearly all questions were either
experience/behavior or feeling questions (Patton, 2015), as the purpose of the protocol was to
uncover students’ lived experiences regarding peer connectedness. The first question asked
subjects to define “community” and is an opinion/value question, which provided their personal
frame to the subsequent questions. There were 16 main interview questions, plus probes.
Although some interview questions supported more than one of the research questions, there
were at least four interview questions for each research question. Questions regarding
connectedness and relationships related to the conceptual framework theories of student
involvement and social penetration. Questions regarding ties to school and academics sought to
establish the link between connectedness, motivation, and social integration (Noyes et al., 2017).
The interview protocol was piloted to try out the questions with subjects similar to the
study profile (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). The questions were adjusted based on the pilot
experience. Among the issues uncovered in the pilot interviews and adjusted for in the final

BUILDING COMMUNITY 44
protocol was evidence that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the subjects’ attitudes, views
and feelings about peer connectedness would loom larger than expected in the discussions.
Demographic Survey
There were seven questions at the conclusion of the interview protocol to collect subject
demographic information. These questions helped provide descriptive information about the
participants and ensure that the study reflected a diverse set of experiences and backgrounds.
These questions included student geographic origin, class standing, ethnic identity, and family
generational college background (Appendix B).
Secondary Data
Data collected for another purpose but with a strong relation to a researcher’s topic is
known as secondary data (Boslaugh, 2010). Where secondary data exists in a setting, it provides
several advantages to the researcher. According to Boslaugh (2010), advantages of secondary
data include that it has already undergone processing, will often have a broader scope than the
researcher might otherwise be able to practically field, and the data tends to be of high quality if
it was already used in a previous study. Secondary data provided corroboration (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015) to the interviews of this study.
The university conducts a student wellbeing survey, annually compiling and tracking
results. The interview questions in this study relating to student involvement and motivation are
relevant to the student wellbeing data. The university also participated in the 2019 American
Association of University’s nation-wide Campus Climate Survey, which included a section of
questions on students’ feelings about general campus community and connectedness. These
questions relate directly to this study and offered a quantitative comparison from recent student
cohorts.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 45
Documents and Artifacts
Certain documents and artifacts that originate in the research setting can be as valuable to
qualitative research as field observations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis can
provide triangulation and corroboration to collection of data in a qualitative study (Bowen,
2009). The newspaper staff setting for this study offered the opportunity to analyze content of
articles published by the student journalist subjects – produced unprompted and in their own
words – that touched directly or peripherally on many of the topics related to this study, such as
student involvement, mental health, wellness, coping with the Covid-19 pandemic, diversity, and
community.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection occurred during the late fall and winter months of the academic school
year when students were on campus and available for in-person interviews. Merriam & Tisdell
(2016) suggest that informal, in-person discussion in the prospective subject’s familiar setting
can help determine good candidates for in-depth interviews before asking them to participate in
the study. A phenomenological study seeking to uncover broad themes found among individual
experiences is best suited for one-on-one interviews (Burkholder et al., 2019). In-person
interviews have the advantage of the researcher being able to pick up on non-verbal cues from
the respondent and minimizing confusion over pauses (Taylor, 2005). The main advantage of
telephone or online interviews is accessibility to a subject from out of the area (Taylor, 2005); all
subjects in this study were current on-campus undergraduates. All the study subjects had their
own journalistic experience and appreciation of interviewing or otherwise interacting with a
news subject. In a study of qualitative interview techniques, Johnson et al. (2021) concluded that
the more engaged, conversational nature of in-person interviews produce richer, more descriptive

BUILDING COMMUNITY 46
data than telephone or online interviews. Additionally, I believe the topic of this study – student
connectedness with peers – compelled in-person engagement with the subjects.
Interviews were conducted during off-hours in the newsroom or adjacent offices of the
student newspaper (Patton, 2002) depending on what was most convenient or preferable to the
subject. Each interview lasted between one hour and 90 minutes. A combined total of 12 hours of
interviews were conducted among the nine subjects. Data was recorded with subjects’
permission using audio/transcription software (Otter AI), which processed the interview and
provided a transcript for review and editing in preparation for analysis.
Confidentiality Parameters
Participants were not personally identified in the study. The interview data was compiled
with coding to develop themes and direct quotes used in the findings and analysis section were
kept anonymous. Only the researcher, who conducted all of the recruiting and interviews, was
fully aware of participant identities.
Data Management / Encryption
All of the study data including interview recordings, transcriptions, notes and coding
analysis were stored encrypted, on the researcher’s computer and an encrypted online backup
drive. The researcher was the only person who stored or accessed the data.
Dissemination of Findings
The findings will be shared with student affairs professionals and other university staff
who work in student engagement roles to offer new perspectives and ideas on ways to expand
and improve opportunities for student connectedness and community building on campus. It will
be shared with others who have an interest in fostering student involvement.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 47
Data Analysis
Qualitative research is inductive -- in that the data helps draw out concepts and theories --
and comparative, with the goal of the analysis to keep to the narrow objective of answering the
research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This section will provide detail on the procedures
used to analyze the data collected for the study.
Descriptive Analysis
The seven demographic survey questions (Appendix B) provided data for descriptive
analysis of the study participants. This included the number of male/female subjects, their class
standing, ethnic backgrounds, geographic origin and non-traditional status such as first
generation, transfer or commuter. Demographic description helps the researcher explain what
value qualitative subject characteristics impart to the study (Marshall, 1996).
Thematic Content Analysis
The study employed thematic analysis, in which repeating patterns across the data were
identified for study (Braun & Clarke, 2006). When using thematic analysis of interview data, the
objective is to consider how the subjects’ narratives address the research questions (Lochmiller,
2021). This analytic method is useful in seeking common or shared meanings from multiple
participants’ experiences (Kiger and Varpio, 2020). The researcher followed Braun & Clark’s
(2006) six-step process for thematic analysis: (a) familiarization, (b) coding, (c) generating
themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) writing up.
Familiarization
In keeping with the emergent design of this qualitative study, the analysis of data was
simultaneous with the data collection, with analysis occurring on the earlier interviews as the
later interviews were still being conducted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This simultaneous

BUILDING COMMUNITY 48
analysis procedure allowed the researcher to identify emergent themes and incorporate early
findings into subsequent interviews that maintained a sharper focus to the study and assisted in
development of a final narrative (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Coding
The transcriptions of the interview data were organized through coding. The transcription
software Otter AI produced an initial list of keywords that aided in this process. NVivo data
analysis software was used to parse the transcriptions. An iterative process expanded and refined
the coding as new data topics emerged from each interview.
Generating Themes
Qualitative data analysis involves segmenting the data and then re-assembling it in a way
that tells the story of the research findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The data from the
subject interviews produced a variety of topics relevant to the study. As topics emerged, they
were aggregated into common themes.
Reviewing Themes
Themes were developed through the lens of the study frameworks. The theoretical
framework of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model suggested themes applied to
the undergraduate environment. The conceptual framework of peer relationship dynamics
formed themes from student involvement theory (Burch at al., 2015), social penetration theory
(Carpenter & Greene, 2015), and autonomous motivation (Noynes et al., 2017).
Defining and Naming Themes
Themes that were common to at least five study subjects (more than 50 percent), either
from the interviews or the news articles that were analyzed, are reported in the findings. These

BUILDING COMMUNITY 49
themes were grouped into broader subject categories. The themes were defined and named based
on the language used by the subjects in discussion.
Writing Up
The findings and recommendations of the study results were prepared for student affairs
professionals, administrators and other college stakeholders who have an interest in advancing
campus life and student well-being. The report has been organized to highlight student
experiences of navigating campus involvement and finding communities. The themes identified
represent the ways undergraduates establish connectedness with their peers.
Document Analysis
In addition to the interview protocol data, thematic analysis was also applied to the
document/artifact content analysis of newspaper articles written by the subjects (Appendix D). A
researcher can use content analysis to explore symbolism, expression and communication found
in documents and artifacts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2018). By establishing descriptive categories for
coding, examination of articles written by subjects can provide deeper context to student
attitudes and priorities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2018). A classic example of utilizing newspaper
content for qualitative analysis can be found in L.W. Shannon’s (1954) study of the comic strip
Little Orphan Annie. As noted by Schreier (2012), Shannon examined the values and sentiments
found in the content of the comic strip that reinforced the attitudes of newspaper editors of the
day and reflected public sensibilities. The following steps for document analysis were applied to
the newspaper articles (Rasch, 2020):

BUILDING COMMUNITY 50
Define the Research
The document analysis was an extension of the qualitative study on undergraduate
student peer connectedness. The study research questions were applied to the document contents.
The study frameworks were applied to reinforce or generate additional themes.
Collect and Sample the Data
Each of the study subjects had written or contributed to a published newspaper article that
touched on the topic of student community and connectedness. These articles were identified and
flagged for their relevance to one of the research questions. One article by each subject was
selected for the document analysis.
Select and Prepare the Data for Qualitative Analysis
These selected documents were reviewed against the emergent study themes. The content
reinforced or added new insights to the interview protocol data. Each article was subjected to
NVivo data analysis software in the same manner as the interview data.
Codebook Development and Coding
The newspaper article analysis shared the same codebook as the interview protocol. The
theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the study guided the emergence of themes from the
interview data. Additional themes from these frameworks emerged from the documents.
Analysis and Comparison
The study codebook was applied to the documents separately from the interview
protocol. The article themes that emerged were grouped with the interview data. Themes were
compared by research questions.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 51
Interpretation of Findings
The themes were attributed to the subject authors. These were included in the theme
counts for each research question. Excerpts from the newspaper articles contribute to the findings
discussion for each of the four research questions.
Secondary Data Analysis
The secondary data utilized in this study was from major campus-sponsored research.
The university wellbeing survey administered in spring 2020 had a margin of error of +/- 1.90%
at the 95% confidence level and 22.5% response rate. The spring 2021 wellbeing survey had an
estimated margin of error of +/-1.2% at the 95% confidence level and a 13.4% response rate.
The spring 2022 wellbeing survey had an 11.8 response rate. The university participated in the
2019 AAU Campus Climate Survey with an estimated margin of error of 0.1 at the 95%
confidence level, and a 15.8% response rate.
Reliability
The reliability of a qualitative study requires that the results are consistent with the data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the data analysis, the researcher constantly
considered whether the findings made sense in the context of the study setting and sample
population. This consideration included review of the interview transcript accuracy, and
adherence to consistency of data coding from interview to interview (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Dependability
In a sufficiently auditability study, the researcher documents and provides the decision
criteria at each stage of the process (Ryan et al., 2007). The researcher has documented the
rationale for the population, sample, and subjects selected for the study. The findings section

BUILDING COMMUNITY 52
includes explanation of the thematic analysis process for interview data and newspaper articles,
and criteria for identifying the major themes that emerged.
Confirmability
A study’s confirmability is contingent upon the researcher’s demonstration of how the
findings were arrived at (Ryan et al., 2007). Strategies for confirmability of this study include
triangulation, use of direct quotes from subject interviews and written articles, and peer
debriefing to ensure that the findings resonate with others outside of the researcher and study
participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Validity
Qualitative study validity is based upon the researcher’s demonstrated checks for
accuracy of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Trustworthiness of this study is
established through making a clear connection between data and results, systemic use of direct
interview quotes, a stated criteria for sample/subject selection, and consolidation of data to a few
key concepts for each research question (Elo et al., 2014).
Credibility
Credibility of this study is vital in order to provide a level of confidence to student affairs
professionals that the recommendations can be converted to program implementations that
positively influence the undergraduate student environment (Moon et al., 2016). Demonstration
of a research study’s credibility includes a clear decision trail used by the researcher; rich, vivid
descriptions of the data themes; use of figures and tables to explain categorization; and
explanation of the analytical process (Elo et al., 2014). Credibility is also achieved through
triangulation of two or more data sources (Daniel, 2019). The secondary university research data
noted in the previous section applied triangulation to the student interviews. In selection of

BUILDING COMMUNITY 53
interview subjects, maximum variation was employed by purposefully seeking subjects with a
wide range of characteristics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Use of documents and artifacts in the study provided triangulation to the study by
bringing in multiple perspectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) of the subjects. Examples from
student writings on topics similar to the interview questions reinforced or offered alternate views
on such relevant views as community, wellness and mental health. Additionally, published
writings from interview subjects enhanced rich, thick descriptions from interviews and provided
additional themes and realistic experiences to bolster validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Transferability
A qualitative study is considered transferable if the findings can be applied in similar
settings (Daniel, 2019). Rather than the quantitative study goal of generalization, qualitative
research attempts particularity of description and themes in a specific context (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The findings of this study achieve transferability, with subjects demonstrated to
be knowledgeable in the topic of student community as typical to their lived experience (Daniel,
2019), as supported by the interviews, their written articles, and secondary survey data.
Conclusion
This chapter provided the methodology and analysis process utilized for the qualitative
study design. Research questions support the purpose of the study, developed around the
theoretical and conceptual framework. Participants were recruited through purposeful selection
to achieve a representative sample of the population within the undergraduate population. The
primary data source was in-person interviews, with triangulation provided by additional data
from participant demographic survey, secondary quantitative survey data, and

BUILDING COMMUNITY 54
documents/artifacts. Data analysis included thematic content analysis of interviews and
documents/artifacts.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 55
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the lived experiences of undergraduates as they
relate to involvement and motivation and identify characteristics of engagement that influence
development of interpersonal connections with peers. The four research questions were designed
to probe student perceptions of connectedness; assess how peer connectedness impacts the
student experience; identify challenges students find in making peer connections; and suggest
changes that could improve connectedness.
Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
The qualitative interviews consisted of 17 interview questions and seven demographic
questions. Each subject was interviewed separately, with sessions that lasted 60-90 minutes, with
a combined total of 12 hours of interviews.
Artifacts: Newspaper Articles
Content analysis was conducted of nine articles published in the campus newspaper, each
written by one of the subjects. The articles were primarily pieces that ran in the newspaper’s
opinion section about personal experiences and student life. Excerpts from selected articles are
included as part of the analysis.
Secondary Data
Results from campus wellness surveys that relate to student mental health and feelings of
belonging are included as part of the analysis. These surveys were administered immediately
before the Covid-19 pandemic shut-down, and immediately after students returned to campus
following the shut-down. The surveys correspond to the time frame that most of the subjects
were enrolled at the university.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 56
Structure of Findings Analysis
This chapter will begin with a summary of the demographic characteristics of study
participants who were interviewed. This will be followed by a section of findings with themes
and analysis for each research question. A summary for each set of research question findings
will be at the end of each section. The chapter will conclude with an overall summary of the
study findings.
Demographic Data Summary
The study was conducted at a large research university located in a major city in the
western U.S.. A total of nine undergraduate students who were current participants in the campus
newspaper organization were interviewed for the study (Table 2). The demographic breakdowns
for the study subjects include: Five males, four females; five Asian, one white, two Latinx; one
Pacific Islander; four from California, one each from Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, Washington,
and one international student from India; five seniors, one junior, two sophomores, one
freshman; four journalism majors, two engineering, one neuroscience, one gerontology, one
political science; four first-generation college students, one transfer, one “spring admit,” and one
commuter. Two of the subjects identified LGBTQ.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 57
Table 4
Participant Demographic Characteristics

Participant
Pseudonym
Gender Ethnicity Home
State
Class Major Other
Notation
Oren M Filipino CA Senior Gerontology Commuter
1
st
Gen US
Tina F Japanese HI Senior Journalism
Tomas M/LGBTQ Cuban MO Senior Journalism 1
st
Gen
Faith F Vietnamese CA Senior Neuroscience 1
st
Gen
Francis M/LGBTQ Korean WA Soph Political Sci Spr Admit
Susan F Mexican CA Senior Journalism 1
st
Gen
Seth M White CO Junior Engineering Transfer
Ella F Indian India Soph Engineering Int’l
Nick M Chinese CA Fresh Journalism

The organization common to all – the campus newspaper – proved to be insightful for
this analysis in two ways. First, it allowed for a shared experience to be interpreted through nine
different perspectives. Second, the newspaper experience provided a strong benchmark lens for
discussion of subjects’ general views on community and engagement in other groups. It was also
anticipated and borne out that the participants brought observations and opinions about other
campus organizations and activities based on their work as student journalists. It is notable, and
will be discussed within this analysis, that each of the five seniors who participated in the study

BUILDING COMMUNITY 58
had their freshman year cut short by the Covid-19 pandemic shut-down in March of 2020. The
junior participant transferred to the university after attending his freshman year remotely through
a different 4-year institution; the two sophomores and freshman have attended college entirely in
person up to this time. In the course of their interviews, the older students tended to be more
reflective and more critical of their experiences. While this is reasonably a result of having more
experiences to consider and contrast, it appeared to also be influenced by the frustrations of their
collegiate careers being affected by the pandemic.
Research Question 1: How do undergraduate students perceive
peer connectedness and motivation?
There is a strong consistency among the undergraduate subjects on perceptions of
connectedness with peers and the motivations behind it. Students bring diverse backgrounds,
interests, and personal goals into their considerations and decisions about affiliation. However,
the ways undergraduates approach involvement is near-universal: in how it is defined; types of
groups that are initially engaged with; characteristics within organizations that are found to be
satisfying; and desired outcomes from engagement.
With the first interview question, each subject was asked their definition of community.
Each subject’s answer to this question provided their own, individualized framework for the rest
of the interview. While each student participated in a different mix of organizations and
activities to varying degrees, they followed similar journeys and arrived at similar destinations.
There was a common thread of language, terms and descriptions in relating experiences. This
appeared to be due to both generational influences as well as the shared involvement with the
campus newspaper.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 59
Students are deliberate and proactive in seeking peer connection. Clearly there is an
element of urgency to involvement that was brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic, which will be
discussed in a later section. More generally, undergraduates follow a pattern of exploring
organizations that catch their interest; getting more deeply involved when they feel a sense of
purpose; appreciating opportunities for social engagement; and ultimately finding their voice
through the support of like-minded peers.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 60
Table 5
RQ1 Themes: Perceptions of Peer Connectedness and Motivation
Topic Themes Mentioned Per Subject
Frequency - Percent
Community Safety/Comfort/Sense of Home 8 - 88%
Collective Experience 6 - 66%
Belonging 5 - 55%
Physical Space 5 - 55%
Gateway Organizations Housing Groups 7 - 77&
Cultural Orgs. 6 - 66%
Orientation 6 - 66%
High Velocity Organizations Rewarding 7 - 77%
Fast-Paced 6 - 66%
Well-Defined Purpose 5 - 55%
Social Engagement Food/Drink 9 - 100%
Hobby/Niche Interest 8 - 88%
One-on-one 5 - 55%
Finding a voice 5 - 55%

BUILDING COMMUNITY 61
Defining Community
The most cited element of community among the subjects was the concept of belonging:
a group where students feel welcome, safe, and comfortable around others. Whether the students
originated from nearby the campus or far away, they explained the importance of having a group
that provides some semblance of home, of a support system where they don’t feel judged. One
student who came from out-of-state described:
Community is about finding those places where you can go back to feel regular, where
you know what to expect, where you know people and they know you, so you can sort of
feel comfortable, like you went back home.
Several students cited the aspect of community existing in a shared physical space. The most
obvious of these examples were housing, such as a floor or set of floors in a dormitory,
apartment suites, or shared rental homes. Some noted welcoming organizational space, such as
lounges for cultural groups. One described the newspaper’s newsroom as a physical community:
“Just being in the space, and communing, and having that experience of hanging out, ‘See you
tomorrow,’ knowing that they were going to be there the next day.” This student, one of the
newspaper editors, took particular interest in festively decorating the newsroom space with
things like pictures, banners, and strings of lights.
Some described community as a collective experience. This includes shared interests and
objectives, members who are passionate for the group’s goals, as well as elements of support and
encouragement for each other’s work and accomplishments. “With an emphasis on looking out
for one another,” one said. This student proposed that shared experience alone did not build an
ideal community. She cited being in an academic, STEM-based organization as a freshman

BUILDING COMMUNITY 62
where the members were all very interested in the topic of the club, but beyond that had little in
common and not much sense of community.
Some of the subjects who had been on campus longer also noted the importance of
mutual engagement between the organization and the individual. One senior who had been
involved in many different clubs and activities during her time at the university, including
leadership roles, said that there was a minimum level of commitment that an individual needed to
put forth in order to connect with others in the group. Another graduating student agreed:
Community is definitely a two-way street. The community has to reach out and welcome
you, but you also have to want to be in that community in the first place. You can't force
yourself to just sit around and be expecting the community to take you in and not engage
with people in those organizations for you to actually enjoy that experience.
Gateway Organizations
At the outset of their college careers, students gravitate to particular groups, which one
might call “Gateway Organizations.” These are the first campus groups they may identify with
as communities. Characteristics of the groups provide an initial sense of security and comfort.
The most obvious of these gateway organizations, due to proximity, is student housing.
Among the first peers that students meet in college are those in their dormitories or other living
quarters. Each of the study subjects said that roommates and others they met in living quarters
were their first friends on campus. Nearly all the subjects who had been at school for multiple
years still lived with at least one of these original acquaintances, and those who did not still kept
in contact with some of them. This description from one senior student was typical: “Freshman
year, I was randomly assigned roommates, and they ended up being my closest friends to this
day. I still live with them.”

BUILDING COMMUNITY 63
The types of activities that students said they did with dorm friends early in their time on
campus included going to new student/welcome activities, meeting up to eat at mealtimes, and,
notably, going to sample other clubs and organizations. Only one of the subjects of this study
identified as a commuter student, who lived approximately ten miles away. However, he had
“made a deal” with his parents to live on campus his first year to help become engaged with
campus life, then moved back home for the rest of his time in school to save money. Now on the
verge of graduation, he attributes the time as a freshman spent living on campus as acquiring his
most enduring campus friendships:
A lot of the friends I have right now are people I met in my dorm. And so, in the dorm,
there's 40 people, and I think I got along pretty much with everybody … and out of that
I'd say I have a very close-knit group of maybe five or six friends.
Another source of connection in the early stages of college are formal orientation and
welcome activities. One student recounted meeting someone at a campus orientation event
several weeks even before the start of school. They became friends, stayed in touch during
freshman year, and became roommates for the rest of her time in school. One of the younger
subjects in the study said that for him, friendships that he made during the welcome week events
were fleeting because they weren’t based on any solid, shared interests. But like most of the
other subjects, he was making plans to live with his freshman roommate for the next school year.
With subjects defining a significant characteristic of community as a space where they
feel comfortable and safe, it makes sense that the university’s ethnic cultural organizations are
popular with new students. Almost every student of color interviewed for this study initially
found some involvement with an organization related to their cultural identity. As one student
described, a freshman joining an engineering club with upperclassmen may quickly feel

BUILDING COMMUNITY 64
overwhelmed or intimidated. But in a cultural club, you immediately have a heritage and
personal experience to bring to the table; you aren’t judged by how long you’ve been Filipino or
Japanese.
Two students found early friendships in organizations related to their non-ethnic
identities. A Korean student quickly got involved with the campus LGBTQ organization. An
international student, rather than join a group of others from her home country, enjoyed
participating in a women’s computer science organization.
Not all students stayed active in the cultural organizations after they found other interests
on campus in later years. Many used these organizations as a springboard to involvement in other
groups, as friends they met in the cultural center introduced them to other activities.
High Velocity Organizations
One student put the campus newspaper in the category of a “high-velocity organization,”
which he defined as being highly structured, fast-paced, with members often devoting a lot of
time to them. Other examples of these organizations several students gave were student
government, other campus media such as the student-run radio station, higher-profile academic
interest clubs, and campus spirit groups. Subjects felt that these groups, with a well-defined
purpose, strong structure, and quality experiences, provided members with the greatest
satisfaction for their involvement.
One student said that the strong-performing standard of the newsroom set a high bar for
his involvement in other campus organizations:
I don't think there has been any club that has ever matched the pace of the newspaper in
my time at the university. I think that performance expectation is kind of what set me

BUILDING COMMUNITY 65
apart from other people in my club … People would be slow to work on a project and I’d
say, ‘No, we have to do it right now.’
One student recounted her first reporting assignment for the newspaper, saying the fast
pace of the other students motivated her to get out of her comfort zone to cover a rally in an area
of the city she was unfamiliar with:
“I felt I needed to make myself stand out. … And I was interviewing random people and
covering the event and that was my first story writing for the newspaper, and it didn’t get
edited much … and maybe that's why I was so inclined to stay because I felt like I was
not bad at what I was doing. But that was my first real sense of reporting.”
Most subjects brought up another campus media organization, one operated by the school
of journalism as a lab for coursework. All of the journalism majors in this study and even some
of the non-journalism majors had participated in the media lab, and they classified it in the high-
velocity experience category. However, each felt that the newspaper was a more practical
experience that provided a stronger sense of community. Several cited the difference in attitude
between students who voluntarily participated in the newspaper, as opposed to the compulsory
“for class credit” nature of the journalism school media lab.
Social Engagement
Despite generally defining the high-velocity organization as the most worthwhile,
subjects felt strongly that no organization could be completely fulfilling without a social
component. In some cases, social aspects of an organization do not require a lot of advance
planning. Groups that spend a lot of time together in a physical space, such as the newspaper or
student government, tend to have social events that naturally flow from working together, even
spontaneously. One editor said, “I didn't really understand how close we were until we decided

BUILDING COMMUNITY 66
to get food one time after 11pm. We went to McDonald's … And discovered, oh, well we have
things to talk about outside of just the newspaper.” Another subject observed that many student
groups schedule off-campus retreats as a way of escaping distractions and getting to know
colleagues outside of their everyday routines. Several of the subjects said they were turned off by
groups that seemed more competitive or corporate in nature, such as academic or professional
interest clubs, where participants were mainly concerned with portfolio or resume building rather
than any activities where members could socialize, with one subject characterizing some of those
organizations as “toxic.”
Meals and food serve as a significant in-person bonding activity for students. Several
subjects noted going to eat with others at the dormitory dining hall as one of their first regular
on-campus activities. When asked what types of things they do in-person with friends, every
subject mentioned food or going out to eat -- as an excuse to get together, as a way to make time
to see friends, as part of exploring the city, or simply as something to do when people gather.
One of the subjects said she enjoys cooking for friends and “showing love through food” as part
of her Asian heritage. In a column for the newspaper reflecting on family memories of Lunar
New Year, she wrote about sharing the traditions with her friends:
The kitchen might smell like smoke as I try to recreate familiar dishes but just the thought
of celebrating the new year in a new way makes all my senses fire up again and warm my
heart once more.
In addition to group interactions, subjects valued one-on-one encounters as a way to get
to know peers better. Specifically, each of the subjects who were first-generation college
students discussed how time spent one-on-one can deepen relationships. One subject said she
had been concerned about the dynamics with her other roommates that shared a rental house

BUILDING COMMUNITY 67
because all their interactions were as a group and there was never any time spent individually.
Another subject said that being able to have one-on-one time with individuals they met in a
group setting was their mark of establishing meaningful, fulfilling friendships. Another student
recounted that even one-on-one time over Zoom during the pandemic had helped him turn what
was originally a casual acquaintance from his dorm into a close friendship, through finding out
more shared interests and personality dynamics.
Nearly every student was involved with or expressed an interest in niche, hobby or
recreational groups. One subject explained, “It’s nice to have a vested interest in something that
isn't work related or isn't a cultural identity, but just something that you like.” Among the
organizations named were acapella singing groups, sports (track club team, intramural men’s and
women’s basketball, ultimate frisbee), photography, Star Wars, and cinema. Several said they
had not participated but were curious about a popular hiking club that scheduled outings with
faculty members. While the subjects said they enjoyed these groups for the opportunity to meet
other students, most did not say that their closest friends came out of these casual organizations
and affiliations.
Finding a Voice
One specific aspect of peer connectedness that the subjects talked about was finding their
unique voice amidst a big, crowded campus. While this related to their involvement at the
newspaper, it was also tied to finding a supportive community where they felt safe in exploring
and expressing how they view the world. One subject said, “There are organizations where you
can say something and they're like, ‘Okay, cool,’ and they just move on. But there’s a process of
giving it time … thinking about it … giving it a space to develop on its own.” Another subject
who had started writing a regular opinion column found that, as much as the exercise of writing

BUILDING COMMUNITY 68
the column helped her sort out her views, it was feedback from friends about the column that
“really cleared things up about what I wanted to do with my life.”
After returning to campus from the pandemic shutdown, one subject’s positive
experiences being back among her college friends inspired her to begin writing about her musical
interests that she had previously kept to herself. She reflected in her final column before
graduation:
It was at this point in my college career, in which I found some of my best friends and
spent my time working on things I truly loved so much, that I decided to begin this
column — when I made the conscious decision to take a part of myself that I used to
deliberately tuck away and shout about how much I loved it on the highest figurative
rooftop in existence.
In summary, subjects defined community as a sense of belonging and a set of collective,
shared experiences. Most students find their initial campus communities from among a set of
“gateway organizations” such as housing groups and cultural spaces. The organizations that
students find most meaningful to engage with are fast paced with a strong sense of purpose.
Regardless of the organization’s mission, a social component is important for building
interpersonal connections. Participation in peer communities that feel supportive help students
find their unique voice to express themselves.
Research Question 2: How does peer connectedness impact undergraduates’
motivation and their campus experience?
Once students find their communities on campus, their engagement and participation with
peers forms the foundation of their college experience. They tend to find involvement more
rewarding based on feelings of accomplishment, including whether their involvement may

BUILDING COMMUNITY 69
advance their professional aspirations. Internships or jobs may provide unexpected elements of
community. Students also take away positive shared experiences from activism, community
service, and volunteer work.
Students appreciate the balance between academic and extracurricular involvement on
campus, and most find diverse social circles beyond their course of study. In ideal situations,
students will be involved with activities outside the classroom that support, reinforce, or even
provide practical application to their coursework. Similarly, experiences from organizations can
be brought into the classroom, and learning can take place in both environments. In both
academic and extracurricular realms, mentor relationships with peers can be powerful and
impactful. Mentoring can take different forms, with some students more open to receiving
mentoring than others, and some students better suited to taking on mentor roles.
Being part of a campus-based community positively influences students’ feelings of
connection with their school as an institution – even if that community may be at odds or have an
antagonistic relationship with the school. Involvement helps make a large, diverse campus feel
smaller to students, and can broaden their understanding of the school’s mission. Remote
learning due to the pandemic shutdown negatively affected students’ feelings of connection to
their school.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 70
Table 6
RQ2 Themes: Peer Connectedness Impact on Motivation and Campus Experience
Topic Themes Mentioned Per Subject
Frequency – Percent
Rewarding Activities Friendships 8 – 88%
Sense of Accomplishment 6 – 66%
Networking/Resume Building 5 – 55%
Most Friends Outside Major 9 – 100%
Inside Major 0
Academic Enrichment to
Extracurricular Activity
Practical Application 7 – 77%
Topics for Writing 5 – 55%
Current events on and off-
campus
5 – 55%
Extracurricular Enrichment to
Classroom
Rewarding 7 – 77%
Communication Skills 6 – 66%
Reinforcement 5 – 55%
Mentoring Positive Mentee Experience 7 – 77%
Trust Peer Background 6 – 66%
Institutional Connection Connection to Organization 7 – 77%

BUILDING COMMUNITY 71
Time Commitment/Investment 6 – 66%

Rewarding Activities
Subjects overwhelmingly cited feelings of accomplishment, particularly from
contributing to the newspaper, as their most rewarding college experience. Several noted the
aspect of watching and being able to shape and influence a project to completion. Even while
acknowledging the tangible products of the newspaper as rewarding, some also considered the
collaborative work and making friends as a rewarding accomplishment. Those who had been
editors felt accomplishment in working with writers and seeing them progress and improve in
their craft, as well as receiving positive feedback on their editor skills from the writers they
worked with. Some subjects also said reflecting on their own skill development and
improvement was rewarding. Most positive reflections on accomplishments included satisfaction
with personal relationships.
Some of the subjects appreciated the networking or resume-building aspects of being
involved with organizations, including the newspaper. Said one on the importance of getting to
know people in a professional context:
I hate the word networking, but … a lot of these people are the ones that you're going to
be working with in the future. I feel there are people that I can rely on for anything,
whether it'd be a job opportunity at some point, or help with a project that I might have in
the future.
Two subjects described working with fellow students in different off-campus, industry-
related internships. They each appreciated being in situations where there was little day-to-day

BUILDING COMMUNITY 72
direct supervision and the opportunity to work creatively with other students. Two others
described on-campus jobs where the workers, both students and full-time staff, had strong
feelings of community, including some out-of-office socializing. Others discussed rewarding
work in activism, such as advocating for social justice causes, or performing volunteer work in
the local community and schools.
One subject preparing to graduate reflected on the elements she felt contributed to a
positive campus experience:
The perfect college experience is the one you make for yourself. It's the one where you
find the communities that you want to join, the ones where you put yourself first, find
people with similar values. You make friends that are going to make you feel good about
yourself and you find spaces where you feel like you can really grow and I think that's
what college is about, growing as a person and really coming into a better understanding
of what you want out of yourself, who you are as a person.
Friends Within or Outside Academic Major
All of the subjects in the study believed that they had made more friends outside of their
academic major than within their major. All of the subjects participate in the newspaper, so a
natural assumption would be that since most of the newspaper staff are journalism majors, many
of them would have a lot of friends who are journalism majors. However, both the journalism
majors and the non-journalism majors perceive that their circle of friends are primarily from
outside their major. One subject explained:
I'm friends with them because they're student journalists. Of course, if you're from the
newspaper, you're probably a journalism major. But in my head, we're not friends
because you're a journalism major. We're friends because we met working at the

BUILDING COMMUNITY 73
newspaper. Even my really good (journalism major) friend freshman year, we met at the
university’s new student convocation.
Subjects offered various reasons why they tended to have more friends from outside their
major. Some said it was a deliberate attempt to broaden their campus perspective. Others said
they felt less affinity toward people in their major than those outside the major. In one case a
subject was surprised to find out a friend was in their same major because the friend didn’t
conform to their notions of characteristics for the major. One subject who was a journalism
major said she intended to strengthen friendships with people in her major as she looked past
graduation, explaining, “I really want to get closer with some of the people that I've met through
my major because there's a lot of people I wish I was closer to and I … want to develop that little
bit stronger network.”
One student’s approach to his friendships was strikingly similar to the Bronfenbrenner
ecological systems model. He described having a circle of people from various aspects of
involvement:
When we talk about the lifespan it's like, when you're young, your network goes outward
so you're trying to get as many friends as possible and then as you get older it comes back
in. I think for me in my time at the university it's kind of been a smaller version of it.
Freshman year I just knew people from different places and obviously being an editor at
the newspaper I meet all my writers and all my staff. Even now when I see one of my
former staffers they'll say ‘hi,’ and we'll talk for a little bit. … It's nice to have that even
though they're just people that you know, they're not like your closest friends.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 74
Academic/Extracurricular Co-Enrichment
The subjects all found some way that their academic studies enriched their involvement
in extracurricular activities. With an obvious tie to the journalism school, most of the subjects
who were journalism majors connected learning in class with the practical application of the
newspaper. One subject said he found discussion of journalism ethical concepts particularly
valuable to being a reporter for the newspaper. Students who were not journalism majors said
their coursework provided background either broadly or more specifically on news topics of the
day. Some subjects who had written opinion articles for the newspaper said non-journalism
courses provided ideas or framework for topics to explore. They also found examples for how
academics supported other involvement, such as preparation for internships.
Subjects were far more interested in discussing how their extracurricular activities
transferred to the classroom. Several noted that working for the newspaper helped develop their
communication skills, not just writing but also speaking and organizing their thoughts. They
attributed this skills development to the exercise of writing, but also to working with peers in the
newsroom and collaborating on production of the newspaper. This experience was found to be
valuable for multiple subjects, not just journalism courses. A subject who was an engineering
major said some of his professors had commented on his communication skills, “My professors
sometimes express that the way I communicate is a little easier to understand than the average
engineering student.” Several also said that general knowledge about what was happening on
campus and the world in general allowed them to be able to participate more confidently in class
discussions and better understand certain assignments. Said one subject, “It gave me certain
vocabulary and style that I wanted to implement in my own writing.”

BUILDING COMMUNITY 75
Several subjects said there were times when their extracurricular involvement was more
rewarding or helpful than their coursework. A student who had sought out and participated in
several different media opportunities on campus said, “I always get a little sad thinking about my
journalism curriculum because it never felt like it pushed me further than what I was learning
outside of the classroom.” Students said coursework could often be too theoretical. The same
student said her hands-on work as an entertainment section writer and editor at the newspaper
was much more valuable than a course taught by a veteran entertainment journalist. “We did not
write once, somehow. We were lectured about the way she covered Hollywood, back when
Hollywood was a bigger deal. It felt like things that don't matter anymore.”
Another student shared how academics were more valuable when the real-world
application became apparent in the newspaper context. She explained that a required course on
DEI seemed hopelessly theoretical until the issues discussed in class manifested themselves in
the newsroom:
I felt like everyone thinks this is a stupid class, because you're not really doing anything
and you're not learning anything. You're just hearing a professor say, ‘we need to be
diverse.’ Yeah, we do need to be diverse, thank you for that. But then actually trying to
do it, seeing what we were attempting in the newsroom to expand diversity and what I
felt like we could be doing, was really helped along by that class.”
Mentoring
The concept of peer mentoring plays an important role in campus organizations and
manifests itself in formal and informal ways. Subjects discussed how the newspaper structure
sets up mentor situations between writers and editors, as well as between newer editors and
senior editors. Editors reflected on how they would get advice from the people who held the staff

BUILDING COMMUNITY 76
position before they did. They also talked about working with younger staff to teach them basic
writing or editing skills or encouraging them to advance in the newsroom hierarchy. Students
involved in other campus organizations described “big/little” pairings, where younger students
are matched up with older students to help them navigate the group and campus life at large. A
subject said that just having a mentor as a resource and role model was motivational. “I don't
know if she's ever actually given me that good of advice if I'm being honest. But she's someone I
look up to because I think she's really good at what she does.”
Several subjects said that having a mentor was a motivating factor in remaining engaged
with a group or deciding to take on a leadership role. An editor said that support from one of her
editors sparked her interest in pursuing a larger role within the newspaper. “He was such a
supportive person that I wanted to be like him or explore that role a bit more. So it was just one
tiny show of interest that led me to do bigger things within the newspaper.”
One graduating student said being in an informal mentor role helped keep him engaged
with the newspaper. “It’s the idea of quality journalism that keeps me over there and helps
motivate me to give critical feedback.”
A subject who worked as a photographer said having a mentor his first semester at the
newspaper would have helped him feel more included in the staff operation. “There were times
last semester where I walked into the newsroom, and I've been working for all these people in
their sections. But there's no acknowledgement of ‘Hey, thank you for what you're doing.’ ”
Students who have positive experience with a mentor, as a mentee, tend to have more
enthusiasm and seek out opportunities as a mentor. On the other hand, older subjects who didn’t
have positive experiences with a mentor also said they didn’t find themselves in mentor roles.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 77
A younger subject used the phrase “horizontal mentor” to describe relationships with
peers roughly the same age and experience level. He defined it as a means of exchanging ideas,
skills, and resources to help each other:
I find a lot of horizontal mentorship where we mentor each other on even the smaller
things. Your STEM friend helps you with math. You call up your biology major friend to
ask them if you can drink soda without rotting your teeth. Things like that. And then
there's also where I teach people in the newsroom how to use the software apps. And then
people teach me how to write an article. … It is really transactional. We uplift each other,
and that is community.
One subject suggested that in circumstances like getting acclimated to school or learning
the ropes in a new organization, she preferred a peer mentor rather than faculty or staff members
because they can better relate to your situation. “It's a person who you know that they were in
your shoes just a while back.”
Institutional Connection
Asking subjects about their feelings of connection to their university as an institution
revealed two conclusions. First, engagement in a student organization helps students feel
connected to their school. Second, they feel the connection to the school through, and in the
context of, the organization(s) they are involved with. The second point was discerned despite
mixed feelings of institutional connection expressed by many of the student newspaper staff.
Students had many reasons to feel connected to the school: having spent the time enrolled
and getting an education, faculty and advisors, gratitude for scholarships, appreciation for
friendships made. Through campus jobs, they felt connections with the university staff and other
students they worked with. Several noted in relation to the newspaper, they had proximity to

BUILDING COMMUNITY 78
know, usually better than the average student, things that went on at the school. Since the
newspaper reporters often write about controversies and even scandals, some suggested they
knew “too much,” in a discouraging sense. Yet at the same time, the collaborative nature of the
newspaper production still makes them feel like a constituent community. One of the editors
summed up many of the feelings expressed by different subjects:
When stuff happens that doesn't really reflect my values and that's not who I am … but
by virtue of being a part of this university and being a student of it, people may project
those things onto me, too. So I think, a lot of the views here in the newsroom are not
everything's sunshine and rainbows, especially what we cover … we see a lot of not
fantastic or uplifting news and sometimes it gets to you, like the university is not perfect
or I don't feel connected to the people running it. … It really challenges you to find a
place where you can do something right and more often than not, I felt like in this
newsroom I could do something right … So I think in those moments the newspaper
helped me … and was also an outlet for emotions, through my column and just through
talking to other people who, like me, felt overwhelmed by the nature of the
publication … It was like the cross that I carried but it kind of lifted the weight at the
same time.
Another editor concluded that it was impossible to devote so much time to an
organization like the campus newspaper and not feel connected to the school, regardless of how
one might feel over specific events, actions or situations, saying, “I feel more tied to the
university because I know so much about it. Does it make me love the university more? Maybe
not. But I guess I feel closer to it because I'm so invested in it.”

BUILDING COMMUNITY 79
The university has two prominent campus service organizations that were cited often in
the interviews as being known for good communities to be involved with. One student said she
was never really interested in joining herself, but she appreciated their positive reputations:
I am not a very rah-rah, prideful student, but I knew a lot of people in those
organizations, and the way people found a space in that group was really incredible to
me. … people in them really loved them and found a lot of friends.
One of the study subjects was also a member of one of those service organizations. She
described that her reasons for joining shortly after returning to campus after the pandemic
shutdown was to connect with like-minded peers:
It was the first thing I joined on campus where I really said, I want friends and so this is
how I'm going to find a group of people that my morals align with and I have the same
sort of values, the same sort of interests.
The current student population has experienced a wave of attitudes and emotions about
their school over the last four years. In the 2019 AAU Campus Climate survey, 20.8% of the
university’s undergraduate women felt “little” or “not at all” connected to the university
community, 40.1% felt “somewhat” connected, and 39.1% felt “very” or “extremely” connected.
For undergraduate men in the same survey, 23.5% felt “little” or “not at all” connected, 41.2 felt
“somewhat” connected, and 35.3% felt “very” or “extremely” connected. In the well-being
survey administered in spring of 2020, just at the start of the pandemic shutdown, 46.3% of
students said they had a positive sense of belonging to the university. The figure dropped to
36.6% the following year, while students were experiencing remote education.
In summary, peer engagement and connectedness have many positive influences on the
campus experience. The types of activities that students find rewarding are those that provide

BUILDING COMMUNITY 80
some feeling of accomplishment, including establishing relationships and being in collaborative
environments where people experience mutual personal growth. Students tend to make more
friends with people outside of their major, putting a focus on shared personal interests over
common academic studies. Academic and extracurricular activities often intersect and support
each other, but students find it especially enlightening to be able to apply ideas and theories
learned in the classroom to practical situations in non-academic settings. Mentor relationships in
organizational settings are positive aspects of building community, for both the mentees and
mentors. Students feel a connection to their institution through the campus organizations they are
involved with.
Research Question 3: What are the challenges to peer connectedness
and motivation for undergraduates?
No examination of any aspect of life in this era can be complete without discussion of the
effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the first portion of this section will be devoted to its
impacts on student connectedness. While it appears the world is moving past the pandemic as a
societal condition, the issues that it uncovered and the problems it created will resonate for many
years with this current generation and likely several to follow. The interview protocol for this
study included questions about the pandemic, but the topic was raised in each conversation by
the subjects well before being prompted.
Putting the pandemic aside, the study also uncovered other barriers the subjects found to
making peer connections. Some said that clubs could be too formal or lack accessibility. Given
that their housing environment is one of the first communities new students become part of,
some identified drawbacks that can be encountered, including for non-traditional students such

BUILDING COMMUNITY 81
as transfers or first generation. Some subjects also described how initial feelings of urgency to
make friends can lead to relationships with little common background and few shared interests.
Table 7
RQ3 Themes: Challenges to Peer Connectedness and Motivation
Topic Themes Mentioned Per Subject
Frequency - Percent
Covid-19 pandemic Desire for In-Person Engagement 9 – 100%
Home/Isolation from Friends 8 – 88%
Urgency/Desire to make up lost
time
8 – 88%
Loneliness/Depression 7 – 77%
Remote Communications 6 – 66%
Remote Participation 6 – 66%
Masking 6 – 66%
Disrupted living plans 5 – 55%
Formality/Accessibility Rigid or complex org structure 5 – 55%
Unfamiliar cultural environment 5 – 55%
Housing/Living Situation Open-Closed Door Policies /
Other dorm situations
6 – 66%
Little in Common 5 – 55%
Non-Traditional Background 5 – 55%

BUILDING COMMUNITY 82
Friends with Disparate
Interests
Urgency to make friends 8 – 88%
Lack of shared experience 6 – 66%

Covid-19 pandemic
In the spring of 2020, five of the subjects in this study were weeks away from completing
their freshman year at the university. They had new friends, got involved with campus
organizations, and each were making plans with other students for their living arrangements in
the coming fall semester. They left for spring break and wouldn’t set foot back on campus for
another 17 months, until mid-August 2021. The other four subjects were in high school,
including one senior who was just a few months away from graduation. Then suddenly plans for
proms, college tours, and summer travels came to a screeching halt. Due to the travel restrictions
of the pandemic, three of these four high school students never visited the university campus
until they moved in for their first semester of classes. The subjects all entered an unanticipated,
remote world that would define their lives for at least the next several years.
For the students who had already started their college experience, the most difficult
aspect of the shut-down was abruptly having to return home and being cut off from budding
friendships and involvement in campus organizations. Attempts were made with varying success
to continue connections remotely. Some found it difficult to have more than superficial chats
online, whether one-on-one or in group settings, and one noted that it was an indication whether
you had a deeper connection with someone if you could hold more than a five-minute
conversation with them over Zoom. A subject explained, “The pandemic definitely made me

BUILDING COMMUNITY 83
value in-person interactions a lot more. I think it's just human nature, you see people's faces and
expressions and you're not just talking to a screen.” Another said that the remote class
experience was less engaging in part because you are sitting alone rather than with a group in the
classroom. “You can’t sit next to people on Zoom,” she said, although others noted the utility of
messaging other students during class or the ability to work on other things if the course content
did not hold your attention.
Some described “remote fatigue,” which made students less motivated to participate in
sessions with clubs and organizations after sitting in online classes all day. “I really don't want to
sit through another Zoom meeting after class,” one said. One subject joked that he broke up with
two different student girlfriends over Zoom, including one he had never met in person. However,
he credited having even that semblance of relationships with helping him get through the
loneliness of the shut-down. A student from out-of-state decided that joining a sorority might be
a way to make friends at school during the shut-down, but she said it only underscored her
isolation from other students, some of whom managed to still be living in the campus vicinity.
“They would FaceTime me from parties and they would all be drunk and I'd just be in my room
at home,” she said.
Each of the subjects who had been freshmen at the time of the shut-down participated in
the newspaper remotely. Rather than a print edition, two weekly online editions were published,
as well as breaking news updates to the newspaper website. Students said that while the remote
environment made participation more difficult, it was an activity that they felt was worthwhile
and gave them a feeling of connection to campus. One subject described keeping up with news in
the summer of 2020, with the constantly changing pandemic environment as well as societal
unrest resulting from the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer:

BUILDING COMMUNITY 84
I was always available and down to do things because I wasn't doing anything else, so I
felt really involved and invested. And it was a crazy summer for news, and … what that
meant for everyone. And I was doing a lot of really intense interviews … It really felt like
what I was looking for.
Another student said being able to write about events happening during the pandemic for the
newspaper was a therapeutic way to deal with the issues personally.
Only one subject returned to live in the university vicinity, in the spring and summer of
2021, before the resumption of in-person classes in September 2021. She described returning to
spend time with friends in person as a re-awakening, with backyard social gatherings and
concerts, after months spent in isolation:
We were just living in the city as 19-year-olds, which was absolute chaos. That
summer … was insanity, it was crazy. That was probably when I most enjoyed my time
during college socially, because it felt like school wasn't demanding enough, that it
wasn’t taking away from anything and so everything felt social, even when we were all in
(remote) class, it felt like we were just doing that for fun … And we were at each other's
houses for wifi … It wasn’t stressful. It felt like we were just enjoying the fact that we
were lucky to be in a big city and not home anymore. People felt comfortable enough
because they were vaccinated. I think we knew what was taken from us. And I think there
was such a desire to come back … nothing was going to get in our way. We were very
rabid and really wanting to enjoy it. It felt so calm, no one was anxious about the future.
We felt like, ‘We have to be right here, right now. We might get sent home again, who
knows?’ And I think we understood … how tragic it really was for all of us who were

BUILDING COMMUNITY 85
trying to grow up and get out, this felt like finally, okay, we are getting out now, this is
officially our time.
Subjects expressed varying degrees of loneliness, isolation, depression, or other mental
health concerns as a result of the shut-down. One of the subjects who had still been in high
school said the remote environment landed him in an outpatient program for depressed teens.
Another subject recounted anxiety after the return to in-person instruction when a professor
displayed little empathy or assistance when she experienced inability to prepare for an exam due
to a physical health issue. According to campus wellness surveys, students at the university
reporting positive mental health declined from 51% at the start of the pandemic (spring 2020) to
37.4% by the fall, amid the remote learning environment of the shut-down. The number of
students with positive mental health rebounded after the return to in-person instruction, measured
at 44.5% by the spring of 2022.
Each of the subjects shared heightened feelings of urgency to get involved once in-person
instruction resumed. The subject who had experienced teen depression during the shut-down felt
that he experienced a transformation when he returned to high school:
Junior year I had a lot of teenage anger. And then coming back senior year I just said,
look, I'm going to get involved in everything and make friends and be more pleasant to be
around. I joined the school yearbook staff. I had founded my own student newspaper,
running track and all these different clubs, and then I was the homecoming king, which
was a shock. I remember, wow, I got this, because this is not my culture, that's not who I
was. But that just sort of epitomized, yeah, I changed. … Strange thing, but I think
having been locked up for a year sort of made me want to be more closely involved with
people.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 86
Another subject said she had to recalibrate her expectations for college, finding herself an entire
year ahead in class standing from where she had been when the shut-down occurred. She said if
the pandemic hadn’t happened, there would have been different organizations and activities she
was planning to be involved with during her sophomore year, but suddenly she found herself
back on campus for junior year, trying to catch up with more advanced coursework.
The return to campus was a gradual transition back to the more normal environment that
had existed before the pandemic. Subjects cited fewer activities with more restrictions on
attendance in the early days of the return. One said she was timid about going out with friends
because she didn’t want to get sick. Two subjects who were new students in the semester when
in-person instruction resumed recounted that during their first weeks on campus, their
roommates each contracted Covid-19 and had to quarantine, leaving them with no one they knew
to attend events with. With mandatory indoor masking in effect, students sometimes didn’t
recognize friends. One editor said a student came up and spoke to her while she was walking
across campus, and it took her a while to realize it was one of her writers, because she had never
seen her in the newsroom without each of them wearing masks. Several subjects also said that
upon returning to campus, setting up in-person social time was a more deliberate, planned
activity because it was considered such a vital need.
One of the subjects was a transfer student with a unique path to the university. He started
as a freshman during the shut-down at a different college, in the same city, then transferred to
start as a sophomore the semester that in-person instruction resumed. He was assigned housing
with other transfer students even though he and all of the other sophomores in school were
setting foot on the campus as students for the first time.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 87
Formality and Accessibility
Beyond the pandemic, subjects discussed other challenges to involvement. A few
mentioned that for new members, larger or more highly structured organizations can be difficult
to find a niche. One described being excited to get hired as an entertainment section writer at the
newspaper, only to encounter an impersonal and distant reception, with assignments sent out on
the communications application Slack. “I remember never knowing who I was speaking to or
what the production process was.”
A freshman who had been very involved in his high school journalism program, said it
was difficult to break into the newsroom his first semester on the staff:
I was feeling like, I'll get to college and finally I won't be the one who's in charge of
teaching people. Finally, everybody's going to be better than me. And everybody's going
to be mentoring me. And I came here and it wasn't like that. Last year I just sort of felt
like I was out on my own. I think everybody in the newsroom was pretty busy with their
own section work or whatever. And I felt like I really didn't have any guidance. And that
was definitely frustrating … to have been times I felt like I don't know why I'm working.
Another subject said that she was initially overwhelmed by the campus ethnic mix, which
had more white students than her high school, and found the Asian cultural organization as a way
to become better acclimated. “In comparison to my high school, which was predominantly Asian
and Hispanic, it was a bit of a culture shock. So it was nice to feel support from people within
my culture.”

BUILDING COMMUNITY 88
Housing/Living Situation
While all subjects made their first friends on campus through their housing group, nearly
all also found that housing assignments can place students together whose backgrounds may be
either too similar or too diverse to suit everyone.
A few subjects discussed dormitory “open-door/closed-door” policies, which dictated
different levels of formality among residents. They explained that some floors practice open
door, which meant that people would leave the doors to their rooms open much of the time,
encouraging residents to wander in and out, check what people were doing, join in conversations
or see if people wanted to go out. Other floors observed closed door, which meant that people
kept their room or suite doors closed, had to knock, text, or call to see if residents were around.
Students said the open-door practice was more encouraging to community building and those
who had lived on closed door floors felt that residents on open door floors made stronger bonds
with others. Describing life on a closed-door floor, one subject said, “I almost never felt like I
was living with other people. It was like a hotel.”
Subjects also discussed dynamics of living in university dorms versus off-campus
apartments and shared houses. Several noted that the more random nature of dorm assignments
meant living and balancing people from a wide variety of backgrounds and personalities. One
said that, while she liked her freshman roommate, they had little in common and never became
close. She wasn’t even aware that the roommate had changed majors until the end of the school
year. After their first year, all of the subjects said they formed their own living groups, almost
always including at least one person from their first-year living group. No students expressed
dissatisfaction or reported conflicts with these self-selected groups.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 89
There was one subject in each of three non-traditional student categories: transfer, spring
admit, and commuter. Each student expressed how there were barriers to finding communities in
each category. The university admits a relatively small number of freshmen to the spring
semester, known as “spring admits.” Since these students are starting a semester late, they
experience fewer welcome activities than students who start in the fall; they are slotted into
“available” university housing space, which may not always be in buildings with other students
their same age, as is the practice with the fall assignments; and often they are stigmatized for
starting their college careers late. The spring admit subject in this study said, “You can tell when
someone is a spring admit in the spring semester because they're very desperate to go out and do
things.” He said that was a factor in deciding to join the newspaper as a freshman, to get
involved with a large organization quickly. Many spring admits have FOMO – Fear of Missing
Out, he said. The transfer student in the study noted similar issues as the spring admits as far as
activities and housing, even though many transfer students start in the fall semester. He
experienced an awkward straddle in his major coursework, landing in classes for freshmen and
seniors, where he found it difficult to penetrate friend groups in the younger or older age
categories. He was aware that there had recently been an advocacy group for transfer student
issues formed within the university student government.
The commuter student, preparing to graduate, was reflective about his unusual student
lifestyle. He observed that many of his school friends came from his freshman year of living on
campus. He said being a commuter made him be more deliberate about seeing people and
making time for them. This subject wrote a column for the newspaper about his experiences as a
commuter, which he summed up in the last piece of his final semester:

BUILDING COMMUNITY 90
I make the commute to campus in the morning not only to make it on time for class, but
also to spend time with my best friends who make being at this university worth all the
money that went into it from my parents’ wallet.
Friends With Disparate Interests
Some subjects talked about an urgency to find friends in their first few weeks at the
university. This pressure to make new friends often resulted in spending time with people who
they had only superficial things in common with. One student observed about his initial friend
group, “There was no shared experience. The only common thread that was running through all
of our going out and hanging out was because we were all so desperate to have community.”
A subject described finding herself in a bubble during her freshman year, where there
was just a single friend she mainly spent time with. She said this friend dictated many of the
activities they would get involved with, talking her out of exploring some groups that she had
expressed an interest in. She felt that the pandemic provided her with a natural break for that
relationship that did not resume after the return to campus. This is the same subject who joined a
sorority remotely during the pandemic. Although she initially continued involvement with the
sorority when the shut-down was over, she ended up leaving the sorority about a month into the
semester, when serious allegations of sexual abuse surfaced against one of the popular university
fraternities. She felt close to the story because the newspaper was covering it. The members of
the sorority voted to go forward with a major social event a few days after the story broke, and
she felt that the action underscored her lack of connection with many of the other members of the
sorority. She said she felt ultimately that her values were too different from the other members
of the sorority. “I just didn’t agree with them. … That's just me personally, but I didn’t know if I

BUILDING COMMUNITY 91
wanted to be a part of something where so many others felt different than me on such an
important issue.”
In summary, challenges to student peer connections were overwhelmingly influenced by
the Covid-19 pandemic. Any student that was an undergraduate at the time of the transition to
remote learning found a portion of their college career and opportunities to cultivate
relationships cut short. When students returned from the shutdowns, they became more
deliberate about finding time to spend in person with friends. Students who were able to start
their college careers in-person were still affected by regulations from Covid-19, such as the
inability to visit colleges before making their enrollment decisions, or the initial curtailing of
campus activities due to lingering pandemic restrictions. While the pandemic has faded, other
barriers to finding community on campus remain. Large, structured organizations can be
intimidating for new students to navigate. Students from certain backgrounds can be
overwhelmed by college populations that are culturally different from their high school. Students
can find themselves in housing environments where they have difficulty making connections or
have little in common with other residents. And such housing situations, or just an urgency to
find friends, can result in students establishing relationships with peers that keep them from
finding communities better suited for them.
Research Question 4:
How can motivational peer connectedness on campuses be improved?
Potential improvements to the conditions that promote peer connections on campus can
be put in broad categories: better promotion of involvement opportunities; stronger guidance
from older peers; improving conditions for engagement; and encouraging collaboration between
groups. Even when colleges make multiple opportunities for students to connect with

BUILDING COMMUNITY 92
organizations, some students may be unaware of activities that they might be interested in.
Mentorship programs prove very successful in helping students find connections but are
employed in some groups better than others. Food is a universal substance that people bond over
and can be a powerful element in building community. Some organizations have natural
affiliations that are not always obvious but could help students in broadening their connections.
Additionally, student leaders can often benefit from sharing ideas and experiences in group
dynamics.
Table 8
RQ4 Themes: How Peer Connectedness on Campus can be Improved.
Topic Themes Mentioned Per Subject
Frequency - Percent
Promotion/Outreach Easier Way to Meet/Connect 8 – 88%
Overwhelming number of orgs 6 – 66%
Mentoring First Year 5 – 55%
Food Meeting up 9 – 100%
Meal with friends 9 – 100%
Dorm gathering 7 – 77%
Feelings/reminder of home 6 – 66%
Cross-Org Involvement Leadership / Org. Training 6 – 66%
Intersectionality 5 – 55%

BUILDING COMMUNITY 93
Promotion/Outreach
Despite activity fairs, online apps and many events aimed at new students, most
expressed some difficulty in learning about the extent of campus organizations and activities. “I
wish there was an easier way to have met other people and check out other dorms,” said one
subject who felt she had to put more effort and deliberation into her quest to find community on
campus. Another subject agreed, saying that new students are easily overwhelmed by a myriad
of organizations and differing expectations for getting involved with them. “You don't find out
about a lot of clubs. I know the activity fair is there, but it can be quite overwhelming. …And I
think a little bit more knowledge, better orientation to groups when you first join.” One subject
said that establishing a group culture of constantly welcoming and orienting new members would
support the non-traditional spring admits and transfers, as well as strengthen feelings of
belonging and commitment to the organization:
It's hard to get everyone together and break the ice to make them meet each other. But
putting a lot of effort towards that pays dividends. Not just in encouraging everyone to
come out but doing it semester after semester. And it makes the process of working
together easier and more fulfilling.
One subject said there were several worthwhile activities to get involved with, but lack of
funding kept them from being able to promote their programs adequately. Another subject felt
there may have been some organizations he would have found interesting to join but said many
groups don’t adequately promote all aspects of what they do. “The reason that I'm not involved
in many campus activities is because literally everything feels tied to some job or internship. I
think that's a major issue, in part because of the LinkedIn culture that we live in.”

BUILDING COMMUNITY 94
Mentoring
Most of the study subjects had at least one positive mentoring experience. But several
said they would have appreciated having mentor relationships at certain key points in the college
experience. Two first-generation students said it would have been valuable to have a personal
resource to help with their transition to campus culture. One said that being assigned to an
honors residence actually made it more difficult to find resources relevant to her personal
background:
I was finally here. … and what now? I just didn't really feel like I had that base … I kind
of wish I had more of that freshman year to have met a different group of people. Being
in the honors dorm meant that I was around people who had a lot of privileges and
accessibilities, because they were on an honors track … And, it was really hard for me to
find my people in that space.
A subject who found himself in several mentor roles during his time at the university said
having a trusted peer resource during the freshman welcome period can help students sort out the
variety of engagement options:
Having a mentor is just so important, for me at least, because it gives me an insight to
their experiences … We always tend to put on a facade of our best selves. Like when
people come to the activity fair booth or the open house, we’re going to talk about the
great things we do … We tend to put on a forward-facing front that makes us look good.
But having a mentor gives you an inside scoop on what's going on and the realities of
what you should and shouldn't do.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 95
Food
Spending time together while sharing a meal or getting coffee was the most cited
experience by subjects in the study.
Scheduling a time to do stuff, happens usually during a meal or, ‘let's get coffee’ … I
feel like you need an activity to do, but just sitting and talking isn't really an activity for a
lot of people. So it's always, ‘Let's sit and talk after we get food or while we eat lunch.’
One student’s campus job was for an office that supported retired faculty and staff
activities. She said one of the more popular events the office assisted with was a few times each
semester when retired faculty and staff would invite students to share home-cooked meals. It
helped foster a sense of community among multiple generations who attended:
So many students came in and they're like, ‘this is the first meal I've actually eaten here
outside of ramen and frozen meals or the dining halls.’ And it was really fun and nice to
just be able to talk to so many different generations … one person would talk about ‘the
good old days’ and next it would be, 'oh my gosh, I'm struggling with finals so much.’
One of the editors said that the time spent in the newsroom is about more than the actual
work of producing each issue. He estimated that some nights there may be two or three hours
spent on the physical job of putting out the newspaper, but some staff might be in the newsroom
a total of four or five hours, eating, working on homework together, or chatting.
A subject’s regular entertainment section column often explored the intersection of
movies or TV shows and food. In one article she suggested that food can provide a break to the
stresses of college life:
Food that reminds you of home is a lovely pairing for this movie. Why? College can be
rough sometimes, so call up your parents or look up a recipe for your favorite food as a

BUILDING COMMUNITY 96
kid. … Cooking something nostalgic and filling for dinner is as close as a lot of us can
get to home during the semester.
Cross-organization Involvement
One subject, who had served as the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, was friends with the
president of the student government. She said they found it productive to have discussions about
the student leadership aspects of their involvement in order to share ideas about group dynamics
and working with different campus constituencies. “I feel not very many students can
understand, so talking to her about issues was really helpful for me in that sense.” Another
subject who was involved in campus environmental and sustainability issues said it had been
helpful to network among a variety of groups whose activities were focused on that topic.
It was clear from observation that many of the student participants’ personal
intersectionality influenced their participation in multiple organizations, although only one of the
subjects spoke about this. For example, the newspaper office is located on the same floor of the
Student Union as the Latinx, Asian, Indigenous, and LGBTQ cultural organizations. Several of
the subjects identified in more than one of these organizations, in addition to their participation
with the newspaper, leading them to spend a lot of their time on the same floor of the building, in
different offices at different times of the day. One student observed that his overlapping
involvement and that of other students created a kind of hybrid community:
I've had to really think about what my identity is, especially intersectional between my
queerness and my identity as an Asian person. But I think because I'm in those
communities, even though I'm not taking a leadership role, there definitely is that type of
community too.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 97
In summary, there are many options to improve opportunities for student peer
connections. Individual organizations can find new ways to promote their groups, including to
non-traditional student categories. Peer mentor programs are helpful and employing them early
in the campus acclimation process can make the complexities of student life seem less daunting
to new students. All students need to eat and opportunities to share meals in formal and informal
settings is an ideal way to engage with peers. Collaboration between groups is a good way to
help students expand their circles of involvement and allow student leaders to share ideas.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 98
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the lived experiences of undergraduates as they
relate to involvement and motivation and identify characteristics of engagement that influence
development of interpersonal connections with peers. Nine student subjects shared their
narratives of navigating student life during the tumultuous era of the Covid-19 pandemic. Their
perceptions and experiences provide insight to the conditions that help promote positive aspects
of building community on campus, as well the challenges they faced in making peer connections.
This chapter begins with a general summary and discussion of the findings. Then there is a set of
conclusions for each of the four research questions, and suggestions for future research. There
are four recommendations from the findings, one for each of four key themes that surfaced in the
analysis. Each recommendation supports one of the components of the study’s conceptual
framework, Undergraduate Peer Relationship Dynamics. The chapter finishes with concluding
thoughts about the study.
Summary of Findings
The experiences shared by the nine students who participated in the interviews for this
study provided strong insight to the dynamics of peer connectedness and engagement among
college undergraduates. The subjects’ common experience as student journalists provided a
unique perspective on the concept of community in the campus setting. These aggregated
perspectives were consistent with the Bronfenbrenner ecological systems model theoretical
framework, centering on the various, overlapping environments students live in, and answered
each of the four research questions posed by this study. The themes that emerged in the findings
align with the conceptual framework models of student involvement theory, social penetration

BUILDING COMMUNITY 99
theory relationship stages, and motivation and social integration. These main themes were
belonging and collective/shared experience; mentoring; social engagement; and intrinsic
motivation from rewarding activities. Undergraduates find community in spaces where they feel
a sense of belonging, safety, and support from peers through shared experiences. These
communities are nurtured through formal and informal peer mentor relationships. There must be
a social component for an organization to build a true sense of community. Students are most
motivated to engage in organizations they perceive as personally rewarding, with participation
resulting in feelings of accomplishment, and this engagement also builds strong feelings of
connection to the institution through their organization. The Covid-19 pandemic proved to be a
strongly disruptive element across the lives of the subjects that influenced each of the major
themes in the findings. In conclusion, peer connectedness and feelings of belonging are an
important aspect of the undergraduate experience that colleges can and should work to help
develop, for the benefit of student wellness, mental health, academic growth, institutional
connection, as well as the significant societal influences of U.S. college graduates.
Discussion of Findings
The conceptual framework developed for this study, Undergraduate Peer Relationship
Dynamics, aligns with the findings. The framework uses as a base the Bronfenbrenner ecological
systems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) applied to the undergraduate student environment. The
study’s recurring theme of belonging and collective/shared experience aligns with this model.
The ecology model feeds into three factors of student involvement theory (Burch et al., 2015):
Emotional engagement, physical engagement, and cognitive engagement. The study’s recurring
theme of mentorship aligns with these factors. Carpenter and Greene’s (2016) “onion” model of
social penetration explains that students form deepening layers of connectedness in developing

BUILDING COMMUNITY 100
relationships. As these peer relationships form, social integration, and motivation theory
(Noynes, et al., 2017) says that students become willing to delve into more difficult tasks and
activities within the group setting. The study’s recurring theme of desire for social engagement
aligns with this social penetration. Autonomous motivation and identified regulation lead to
students performing progressively stronger tasks for their own personal growth or greater good
of the group (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). The study’s recurring theme of intrinsic motivation
aligns with this concept. These recurring themes that emerged from the findings – belonging and
collective/shared experience; mentorship; social engagement; and intrinsic motivation –
comprise the key characteristics students articulate in discussion of experiences that lead to
positive peer connections.
Conclusions to RQ1: Undergraduate Students Perceptions of Peer Connectedness and
Motivation
Student definitions of community as collective and shared experiences support Burch et
al.’s (2015) student involvement dimensions of emotional, physical, and cognitive engagement.
Students’ additional descriptions of community that include belonging, safety, and comfort also
support the narrative of the current Generation Z student age group as being raised in
increasingly protective environments by parents and schools, contending with activities such as
lockdowns and active shooter drills that reinforced feelings of being unsafe (Camfield et al.,
2020). The experiences of this age group through the Covid-19 pandemic, just as they were
leaving home or beginning to make college plans (Birmingham et al., 2021), easily played into
and amplified these anxieties.
While students generally look to find new, diverse experiences in college, they at least
initially retreat to familiar settings (Jorgenson et al., 2018). This supports the finding of “gateway

BUILDING COMMUNITY 101
communities” such as housing groups or cultural affinity organizations that new students
gravitate to.
One subject in the study characterized “high-velocity organizations” as the most
meaningful to engage with, and other subjects similarly discussed these as being fast-paced with
a strong sense of purpose. Such organizations deliver the type of “high-quality experiences”
described by Tieu et al. (2010), structured activities that impart positive feelings, are perceived
by participants as having important missions, and help students form connections with their
peers. Subjects in the study expressed near-universal agreement that organizations need to have
a social component in order to truly offer a sense of community. This attitude conforms with the
concept of student connectedness as a reciprocal process that strengthens the organization as
members form stronger relationships. When students become engaged in an organization, they
cultivate friendships, which in turn lead to increased involvement in the organization (Jorgenson
et al., 2018).
Conclusions to RQ2: Impact of Peer Connectedness and Motivation on the Undergraduate
Campus Experience
Subjects said that the most rewarding activities provided a feeling of accomplishment,
which may include successful peer collaborations, personal growth and forming new
relationships. This is consistent with a mixed method study that found undergraduates felt a
sense of belonging and group members valued each other in activities formed around common
challenges, stressors, and agendas (Hoffman et al., 2002).
The findings showed that students appreciate how academic and extracurricular activities
can complement and reinforce each other. But what subjects found most valuable were the
opportunities to apply ideas and theories from the classroom in real-world situations. Research

BUILDING COMMUNITY 102
has demonstrated multiple benefits to out-of-class campus experiences, including practical
application, personal development, critical thinking, and organizational skills (Jones, 2018).
Formal or informal mentorship programs were seen as important elements of campus
organizations. Subjects were especially enthusiastic about serving as a mentor if they had a
positive experience as a mentee. Evidence exists that there are benefits to those serving in both
roles. Mentees experience better acclimation to the campus, academic support, as well as
improved rates of retention; while mentors have been shown to display improved problem
solving, interpersonal skills, confidence, and sense of belonging (Tsang, 2020).
A deep level of engagement in student organizations will result in strong feelings of
connection with not only fellow members, but with the institution as well. Even if they may feel
that the institution is not fully aligned with their personal values, this connection is made through
the campus organization because of the “vested interest” students have made. Jorgenson et al.
(2018) found that student perceptions of the institutional role or their place in it may not
necessarily align with the actual organizational structure that is in place.
Conclusions to RQ3: Challenges to Undergraduate Peer Connectedness and Motivation
“Students are shaped in part by the era in which they attend college. Time-bound cohort
influences include national and global events that characterize that era.” (Renn & Arnold,
2003)
The Covid-19 pandemic will stand as the defining event of this era in world history.
Correspondingly, this generation’s student experiences will be forever overshadowed by campus
shut-downs, remote learning, face mask mandates, virus testing, quarantines, activity and travel
restrictions, and vaccinations. Among the conditions that students were subject to during the
pandemic were sickness and death of friends and loved ones; family violence; being

BUILDING COMMUNITY 103
unexpectedly thrust into caregiver roles; food insecurity; inequities due to such factors as race,
gender, or age; and lack of access to health care, including mental health care (Lederer et al.,
2021). In the wake of the pandemic’s remote environment, subjects said they are now more
deliberate in finding time to spend with friends and cultivating those relationships. Studies have
shown that students make more meaningful connections through fewer, deeper, high-quality
relationships, as opposed to having many more superficial friendships (Jorgenson et al., 2018).
In the best of times, new students can find it intimidating to navigate life at college. The
study showed that students from underrepresented backgrounds can be overwhelmed when the
campus population is culturally different from their home background. These differences may be
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, financial or other characteristics. They may have
difficulty fitting in with their housing situation, in the classroom, or in organizations. Jones
(2018) discussed this “in-between-ness” that students can feel in the transition from home to
school while establishing an undergraduate identity, during which they may experience a range
of emotions, from anxiety and exclusion to excitement and exhilaration.
Conclusions to RQ4: Improving Motivational Peer Connectedness on Campus
Students suggested that there were some organizations and activities they may have been
interested to participate in if they had known about them. This was most common among
students who fell into categories such as first-generation, transfer, spring admit or commuter.
During the “in-between-ness” transitional period for new students, Jones (2018) notes that the
non-traditional categories of students struggle the most to fit in, so making efforts to support
them is especially important.
Students react positively to mentoring programs. Several of the subjects said they would
have appreciated having a mentor resource when they first started at the university. Evidence has

BUILDING COMMUNITY 104
shown that peer support is especially important in the early stages of student life (Tsang, 2020).
Additionally, studies indicate that first-generation students are best motivated by support from
student peers (Dennis et al., 2005).
Suggestions for Future Research
The results of this study provided enlightening findings across a relatively narrow range,
partially inherent in the nature of qualitative research. It would be expected that a replication of
this study would produce different findings based on the varying experiences of a different set of
subjects. Intentionally selected subjects from different campus communities would provide the
opportunity to make a variation of this study on student connectedness by collecting lived
experiences from other lenses, possibly with a focus on a particular gender, race, sexual identity,
academic background, organizational interest, or other characteristics.
A quantitative or mixed method study on the topic of student connectedness could offer a
broader examination of student perceptions. This research could explore additional avenues such
as students who did not feel engaged in campus activities and bring in perspectives on
community from other constituencies that support the student experience, such as faculty, staff
and family. This additional research may also look to track subjects’ experiences longitudinally
and follow their journeys of connectedness through different campus communities at varying
points in their collegiate careers.
Recommendations
Four recommendations have been made as a result of the study findings. Each
recommendation relates to one of four major themes identified from the results: Belonging and
collective/shared experience, intrinsic motivation, mentorship, and social engagement.
Additionally, each recommendation is framed in the context of one of the elements of the study’s

BUILDING COMMUNITY 105
undergraduate peer relationship dynamics conceptual framework: the ecological systems model,
student involvement theory, social penetration theory, and motivation and social integration.
Belonging & Collective/Shared Experience: Identify and Utilize “Gateway Communities” as
a Means to Assist New Students in Finding Access to Campus Organizations and Activities
● Finding: Universally, students gravitate to similar types of campus communities at
the outset of their college experiences, generally within their housing group and/or a
broad-based affinity club such as a cultural heritage organization. This study has
identified these as “Gateway Communities,” which can provide students with a
jumping off point to other campus involvement.
● Conceptual Framework Component: Bronfenbrenner ecological systems model.
Many students set out for college to have a diverse set of new experiences, but initially
they may fall back into familiar groups and settings (Jorgenson et al., 2018). These may be the
other students they have met in their dorm and may also be a cultural group such as a Latinx,
Black, or LGBTQ student organization.
Within the microsystems and mesosystems of the ecological systems model, Renn &
Arnold (2003) identify a Measure of Centrality, which refers to a student’s network of other
connected students. The broader and more complex a student’s circles of involvement go, the
more rich and deep their network, and the more they develop skills, knowledge and confidence
(Renn & Arnold, 2003).
● Application to Practice: In order to take advantage of these organizations that new
students are initially drawn to, it is recommended that such gateway organizations be
identified, and contacts be established with key students/staff affiliated with them.
Arrange to embed students from other organizations in the gateway communities, or

BUILDING COMMUNITY 106
stage formal recruitment sessions from outside organizations at times and locations
that are convenient to the gateway community members. Studies of student
participation on campus suggest that there always exists a core group of connectors or
influencers who formally or informally promote campus involvement to larger groups
(Kulp et al., 2021).
Intrinsic Motivation: Encourage Organizations with Primarily Professional or Academic
Field Focus to Include Social Opportunities in Their Programs
● Finding: Students can be put off by organizations, even within their major or
professional interest, that they perceive as having limited or no social component.
● Conceptual Framework Component: Motivation and Social Integration
Student connectedness is a reciprocal process. Students make friends as the result of
engagement within a group or activity, and these friendships lead to increased involvement with
the group (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Students are more willing to deepen their involvement and
take on more complex tasks in organizations in which they have established relationships
(Noynes et al., 2017). As relationships within the group develop, student affinity toward the
group and its members increasingly lead to intrinsic motivation to participate.
● Application to Practice: Provide all campus student organizations, including those
based in academic units or aligned with professional societies, with guidelines and
suggestions that include having a “social chair” type position, with ideas for activities
that promote engagement and connectedness. Some may feel that there are
organizations which do not or should not lend themselves to offering a significant
social component, that they should be more serious in nature, such as a club affiliated
with a professional association. Potential student members do not see such

BUILDING COMMUNITY 107
distinctions so easily. Student experiences on campus and the way they perceive the
institutional role often does not align with the organizational structure in place
(Jorgenson et al., 2018).
Mentorship: Build Mentor Programs Through Positive Development of Mentees
● Finding: Students who were exposed to positive mentorship programs as “mentees”
subsequently seek out and enjoy opportunities to serve as mentors.
● Conceptual Framework Component: Student Involvement Theory
Peer mentorships show positive outcomes for both mentees and mentors. Mentees benefit
from stronger integration into the campus community and improved academic performance;
mentors improve interpersonal skills and self-efficacy; both share a sense of belonging in the
organization where the mentorship is taking place (Tsang, 2020). The mentorship process
utilizes all three of Burch et al.’s (2015) engagement components of student involvement theory:
Emotional, Physical and Cognitive.
● Application to Practice: Track mentorships within campus organizations and
establish systems/networks that promote mentees into mentor roles. Mentor
relationships build strong continuity in organizations. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological system model, peer relations between chosen microsystems will reinforce
behaviors that are modeled (by mentors) and reflect personal aspirations (of mentees)
(Renn & Arnold, 2003).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 108
Social engagement: Create campus food and beverage services that support opportunities
for student gatherings and socializing.
● Finding: Getting food or coffee, and sharing meals is the most common activity
students participate in when they are socializing.
● Conceptual Framework Component: Social Penetration Theory
Whether occurring early, late, or at other times along the way during their collegiate
journeys, subjects related experiences of community to food and eating. It could be meeting for
lunch, a mentor session over coffee, cooking a meal for friends or grabbing a late night snack. In
any of these situations, students said these opportunities away from formal activities or spaces
helped deepen connections or reinforce friendships. Such encounters advance Carpenter and
Greene’s (2016) social penetration theory “onion model” of working through increasingly more
complex layers of connectedness in relationships, following from orientation (superficial) to
exploratory (less cautious) to affective (more casual) to stable (including family, close friends,
and romance).
● Application to Practice: Work with the campus dining operation to explore ways that
enhance student opportunities to socialize over food and beverage. Consider non-
traditional hours of availability that may be convenient to students, such as after evening
classes are over; research menu offerings; and review dining area configurations for
spaces that can flexibly accommodate large or small groups, in formal or informal
settings.
In summary, the four recommendations each offer ways that student affairs professionals
and other institutional staff can assist in strengthening opportunities for undergraduate students
to build community within their campus organizations. These recommendations are based on key

BUILDING COMMUNITY 109
themes that emerged from the study findings: belonging and collective/shared experiences,
intrinsic motivation, mentorship, and social engagement.
Conclusion
This study set out to investigate students’ perceptions and experiences in finding and
building peer connections among college undergraduates. The narratives through the lens of
student journalists provided observations that often took a more expansive or reflective view.
These experiences painted the picture of a generation that actively seeks community through
organizations and activities where they feel valued, comfortable, and safe, while also making
worthwhile contributions and accomplishments. The defining event of this era in their lives, the
Covid-19 pandemic, has resulted in this generation placing a high priority on making time for in-
person and one-on-one engagement. The many months of remote learning and other restrictions
brought on by the pandemic have left a scar that this generation may always feel they are healing
from. If there is a silver lining to the pandemic for undergraduates, it may be that the experiences
underscored the need for peer connectedness and amplified the challenges students face in
building quality relationships. This study shows that colleges and universities have great
opportunities to strengthen the ways students find community.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 110
References
Ataro, G. (2020). Methods, methodological challenges and lessons learned from
phenomenological study about OSCE experience: Overview of paradigm-driven qualitative
approach in medical education. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 49, 19-23.
Altbach, Philip G. (2007) Student Politics: Activism and Culture. In International Handbook of
Higher Education Part One: Global Themes and Contemporary Challenges, Part Two:
Regions and Countries / (pp. 329–345). Springer Netherlands: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4020-4012-2_17
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Billingsley, J. T., & Hurd, N. M. (2019). Discrimination, mental health and academic
performance among underrepresented college students: the role of extracurricular activities
at predominantly white institutions. Social Psychology of Education, 22(2), 421-446.
Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Research. Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Federal Register, 44(76), 23191-23197.
Boslaugh, S. (2010). Secondary data sources. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research
design (pp. 1331-1331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n406
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), 27-40.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 111
Birmingham, Wendy C., Wadsworth, Lori L., Lassetter, Jane H., Graff, Tyler C., Lauren,
Evelyn, & Hung, Man (2021): COVID-19 lockdown: Impact on college students’ lives,
Journal of American College Health, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1909041
Booker, J. A., Hernandez, E., Talley, K. E., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2021). Connecting with others:
Dispositional and situational relatedness during the college transition. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 02654075211034566.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brown, M. C., & Davis, J. E. (2001). The historically Black college as social contract, social
capital, and social equalizer. Peabody journal of Education, 76(1), 31-49.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P. A. (2007). The Bioecological Model of Human Development.
In Handbook of child psychology. Wiley Imprint.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114
Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., Burch, J. J., Freed, R., & Steed, S. A. (2015). Student engagement:
Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. Journal of Education for
Business, 90(4), 224-229.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Chapter 10:
Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research Design and Methods: An Applied
Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner (pp. 147-159). Sage.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 112
Byrd, D. R., & McKinney, K. J. (2012). Individual, interpersonal, and institutional level factors
associated with the mental health of college students. Journal of American College
Health, 60(3), 185-193.
Camfield, E. K., Moore, J. L., & Allen, J. (2020). Sifting Through Gen Z Stereotypes: Using
Critical Empathy to Assess Writers' Invisible Learning. Journal of Higher Education Theory
& Practice, 20(6).
Carpenter, A., & Greene, K. (2015). Social penetration theory. The international encyclopedia of
interpersonal communication, 1-4.
Charles, N. E., Strong, S. J., Burns, L. C., Bullerjahn, M. R., & Serafine, K. M. (2021). Increased
mood disorder symptoms, perceived stress, and alcohol use among college students during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry research, 296, 113706.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7.
Crawford, B. F., Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2020). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted
minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability
Studies, 31(1), 43-74.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniel, B. K. (2019, June). What constitutes a good qualitative research study? Fundamental
dimensions and indicators of rigour in qualitative research: The TACT framework. In
Proceedings of the European conference of research methods for business & management
studies (pp. 101-108).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 113
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,
and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college
students. Journal of college student development, 46(3), 223-236.
De Brey, C., Snyder, T.D., Zhang, A., and Dillow, S.A. (2021). Digest of Education Statistics
2019 (NCES 2021-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in
college. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative
content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open, 4(1), 2158244014522633.
Farrell, L. C., Jorgenson, D., Fudge, J., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The
student perspective. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75-95.
doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371
Finley, A. (2021). How College Contributes" to" Workforce Success: Employer Views on What
Matters Most. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Fish, J., & Syed, M. (2018). Native Americans in higher education: An ecological systems
perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 387-403.
Ganotice, F. A., Gill, H. H., Fung, J. T. C., Wong, J. K. T., & Tipoe, G. L. (2021). Autonomous
motivation explains interprofessional education outcomes Wiley. doi:10.1111/medu.14423
Gareis, E., Goldman, J., & Merkin, R. (2019). Promoting intercultural friendship among college
students. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 12(1), 1-22.
doi:10.1080/17513057.2018.1502339

BUILDING COMMUNITY 114
Gelber, S. M. (2011). The university and the people: Envisioning American higher education in
an era of populist protest. University of Wisconsin Press.
Groccia, J. E. (2018). What is student engagement? New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2018(154), 11-20. doi:10.1002/tl.20287
Gusfield, J.R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
Haynes, B. (2006). Black undergraduates in higher education: An historical perspective.
Metropolitan Universities, 17(2), 8-21.
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of
belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 4(3), 227-256.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The
influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in higher education, 43,
555-575.
Hughes, S., Davis, T. E., & Imenda, S. N. (2019). Demystifying theoretical and conceptual
frameworks: A guide for students and advisors of educational research. J Soc Sci, 58(1-3),
24-35.
Inazu, John (2018) "The Purpose (and Limits) of the University," Utah Law Review: Vol. 2018:
No. 5 , Article 1. https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2018/iss5/1
Ivanova, A., & Moretti, A. (2018). Impact of depth and breadth of student involvement on
academic achievement. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(2), 181-195.
doi:10.1080/19496591.2017.1358637

BUILDING COMMUNITY 115
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Chapter 9: Methods of data collection. In
Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.) (pp. 223-
246). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., & Ecklund, E. H. (2021). Beyond the in-person interview? How
interview quality varies across in-person, telephone, and Skype interviews. Social Science
Computer Review, 39(6), 1142-1158.
Jones, R. (2018). The student experience of undergraduate students: towards a conceptual
framework. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(8), 1040-1054.
Jorgenson, D. A., Farrell, L. C., Fudge, J. L., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The
student perspective. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75-95.
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No.
131. Medical teacher, 42(8), 846-854.
King, A. E., McQuarrie, F. A., & Brigham, S. M. (2021). Exploring the Relationship Between
Student Success and Participation in Extracurricular Activities. SCHOLE: A Journal of
Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 36(1-2), 42-58.
Kitchen, J. A., Hallett, R. E., Perez, R. J., & Rivera, G. J. (2019). Advancing the use of
ecological systems theory in college student research: The ecological systems interview
tool. Journal of College Student Development, 60(4), 381-400.
Knifsend, C. A. (2020). Intensity of activity involvement and psychosocial well-being among
students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 116-127.
Kuh, George D. 2003. “What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE. Change
35(2): 24–32.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 116
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement?
Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0099

Kulp, A. M., Pascale, A. B., & Grandstaff, M. (2021). Types of extracurricular campus activities
and first-year students’ academic success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 23(3), 747-767.
Lederer, A. M., Hoban, M. T., Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2021). More than
inconvenienced: The unique needs of US college students during the COVID-19
pandemic. Health Education & Behavior, 48(1), 14-19.
Lee, P. (2011). The curious life of in loco parentis in American universities. Higher Education in
Review, 8, 65-90.
Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., Abelson, S., Heinze, J., Jirsa, M., Morigney, J., ... & Eisenberg, D.
(2022). Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: Findings
from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021. Journal of Affective Disorders, 306,
138-147.
Liu, R. L., & Chang, K. T. (2014). The causal model of the freshman year characteristics,
campus experiences and learning outcomes for college students. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1383-1388.
Lochmiller, C. R. (2021). Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data. The Qualitative
Report, 26(6), 2029-2044. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008
Manago, & Vaughn, L. (2015). Social Media, Friendship, and Happiness in the Millennial
Generation. In Friendship and Happiness Across the Life-Span and Cultures / (pp. 187–
206). Springer Netherlands: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3_11

BUILDING COMMUNITY 117
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
Martin, G. L., Smith, M. J., Takewell, W. C., & Miller, A. (2020). Revisiting our contribution:
How interactions with student affairs professionals shape cognitive outcomes during
college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(2), 148-162.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6. doi:10.1002/1520-6629
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, K., T. D. Brewer, S. R. Januchowski-Hartley, V. M. Adams, and D. A. Blackman. 2016.
A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation
journals. Ecology and Society 21(3):17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08663-210317
Morrow, R., Rodriguez, A., & King, N. (2015). Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological
method. The psychologist, 28(8), 643-644.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2022). Current Term Enrollment, Spring
2022. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/.
Noguera, P., Hurtado, A., & Fergus, E. (Eds.). (2013). Invisible no more: Understanding the
disenfranchisement of Latino men and boys. Routledge.
Olson, K. W. (1973). The GI Bill and higher education: Success and surprise. American
Quarterly, 25(5), 596-610.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Foreword: Using Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory to frame quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
research. International journal of multiple research approaches, 7(1), 2-8.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 118
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition to college: Precollege predictors
and college adjustment correlates. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(1), 77-89.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pickvance, C. G. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of housing and the built
environment, 16(1), 7-28.
Pifer, A. (1973). The Higher Education of Blacks in the United States. Carnegie Corp., New
York.
Raposa, E. B., Hagler, M., Liu, D., & Rhodes, J. E. (2021). Predictors of close faculty− student
relationships and mentorship in higher education: findings from the Gallup− Purdue Index.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 36-49.
Rasch, Daniel (2020). A QDA recipe? A ten-step approach for qualitative document analysis
using MAXQDA. https://www.maxqda.com/blogpost/qualitative-document-analysis
Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a
developmental ecology lens. Journal of college student development, 44(3), 383-403.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college student peer
culture. The journal of higher education, 74(3), 261-291.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2:
Qualitative research. British journal of nursing, 16(12), 738-744.
Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
Rubinson, R. (1986). Class formation, politics, and institutions: Schooling in the United
States. American journal of Sociology, 92(3), 519-548.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 119
Rudolph, F. (2021). The American college and university: A history. Plunkett Lake Press.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage publications.
Sikes, P. (2000). ‘Truth’and ‘lies’ revisited. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 257-
270.
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and scope of the
study.
Sivertsen, B. (2020). Only the lonely: A study of loneliness among university students in
Norway. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v2i1.2781
Shannon, L. W. (1954). The opinions of Little Orphan Annie and her friends. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 18(2), 169-179.
Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on
College Students’ Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research., 22(9). https://doi.org/10.2196/21279
Sriram, R., Cheatle, J., Weintraub, S. D., Haynes, C., Murray, J. L., & Marquart, C. P. (2020).
The influence of academic, social, and deeper life interactions on students' psychological
sense of community. Journal of College Student Development, 61(5), 593.
doi:10.1353/csd.2020.0057
Stolzenberg, E. B., Aragon, M. C., Romo, E., Couch, V., McLennan, D., Eagan, M. K., & Kang,
N. (2020). The American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2019. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA
Taylor, M. C. (2005). Interviewing. Qualitative research in health care, 39-55.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 120
Tieu, T. T., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Wintre, M. G., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., &
Adams, G. (2010). Helping out or hanging out: The features of involvement and how it
relates to university adjustment. Higher Education, 60(3), 343-355.
Tsang, A. (2020). The value of a semi-formal peer mentorship program for first-year students’
studies, socialization and adaptation. Active Learning in Higher Education,
1469787420945212.
Twenge, J., Spitzberg, B., & Campbell, W. (2019). Less in-person social interaction with peers
among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships., 36(6), 1892–1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR §
46. Subparts AD.
Vaccaro, A., Russell, E. A., & Koob, R. M. (2015). Students with minoritized identities of
sexuality and gender in campus contexts: An emergent model. New directions for student
services, 2015(152), 25-39.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4.
Vianden, J. (2015). What matters in college to students: Critical incidents in the undergraduate
experience. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(3), 287-299.
Walch-Patterson, A. (2020). Exemptions and limited institutional review board review: A
practical look at the 2018 common rule requirements for exempt research. Ochsner
Journal, 20(1), 87-94.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 121
Wang, J., & Shiveley, J. (2009). The impact of extracurricular activity on student academic
performance. Retrieved May, 5, 2010.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Allyn & Bacon.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 122
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Research Questions:
RQ1. How do undergraduate students perceive peer connectedness and motivation?
RQ2. How does peer connectedness impact undergraduates’ motivation and their campus
experience?
RQ3. What are the challenges to peer connectedness and motivation for undergraduates?
RQ4. How can motivational peer connectedness on campuses be improved?
Respondent Type:
Undergraduate Students involved with student organizations.
Target: Student newspaper staff members.
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for taking time to speak with me today. I am a doctoral student at USC, and the study
that I’m conducting is about college undergraduates and relationships they form with peers,
meaning other students on campus. The purpose is to understand involvement with peers and
use this information to help strengthen existing programs or design new programs that help
students foster strong peer connections.
There are no right or wrong answers to the questions I’ll be asking you. I am interested in
hearing about your experiences and want you to be comfortable in sharing them with me. The
interview will be entirely confidential, which means that you will not be personally identified.
The data from all of the interviews that I conduct will be compiled and some of the discussion
will be used in the final report, but no individual identities will be revealed. I will be glad to
provide you with a copy of my final report when it is finished.

BUILDING COMMUNITY 123
Do you have any questions about the study? Because I want to capture our interview as
accurately as possible, I would like to record the conversation if that is OK with you. The
recording will only be for my reference and will not be shared. Do I have your permission to
record the interview?
Interview Questions Potential Probes
RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Question Type
(Patton, 2002)
1. How do you define
“community” on
campus?
What campus
communities do
you consider
yourself to be a
part of? RQ1
Peer
connectedness
perceptions. Opinions/values
2. What have you found
to be your most
rewarding or
memorable
experiences in
college?
Have these
experiences
allowed you to
build
relationships
with other
students? Can
you tell me about
some of these
relationships? RQ2
Student
involvement
Behaviors/
experiences
3. What are some
experiences you’ve
had that have been
less rewarding or
memorable?
Why were these
experiences less
memorable or
rewarding? Did
you build any
relationships
from these
experiences?
What would
have improved
this experience
for you? RQ2, 3, 4
Student
involvement,
peer
connectedness
motivation
Behaviors/
experiences
4. Have there been
organizations or
activities you’ve
wanted to get
Why were you
interested in
these
orgs/activities? RQ3 Motivation
Behaviors/
experiences

BUILDING COMMUNITY 124
involved with but
have not?
Why haven’t you
been able to get
involved?
What are some
activities that
you may have
briefly
participated in
but did not
continue?
5. How did you decide
to get involved in the
activities and
organizations you’re
currently a part of?
Why did you
decide to stay
involved or drop
out of different
activities? RQ 2 & 3
Motivation,
student
involvement
Behaviors/
experiences
6. What activities or
organizations, aside
from the ones you
participate in, come
to mind that other
students you know
are involved with?
Based on what
you know from
these students or
your own
observations,
how would you
compare the
level of
commitment or
relationships
students have in
those activities
or orgs. with
your own
experiences? RQ2
Motivation,
student
involvement
Behaviors/
experiences,
knowledge
7. Can you tell me about
any other
organizations or
activities you have
gotten involved with
as a result of your
involvement with
(activity/org. already
talked about).
Can you think of
some examples
of students you
know who are
involved in more
than one of the
same activities or
organizations as
you? RQ2, RQ4
Motivation,
student
involvement,
peer
connectedness
Behaviors/
experiences
8. Can you share with
me any ways that
To turn that last
question around, RQ2, RQ4 Motivation Behaviors/

BUILDING COMMUNITY 125
your campus
involvement has
helped you with your
academic studies?
can you share
any ways that
your academic
studies have
enriched your
extracurricular
involvement?
experiences,
knowledge
9. Tell me about your
closest friends.
Where have you
made your closest
friendships on
campus? How did
you meet them? RQ2
Student
involvement,
peer
connectedness
Behaviors/
experiences
10. Would you say that
most of your student
friends and
acquaintances on
campus are from
within or outside your
major? Why do you
think that is the case? RQ1, RQ2
Student
involvement,
social
penetration,
peer
connectedness
Behaviors/
experiences
11. Are there any student
relations you’ve
formed that you
would characterize as
a mentor? How did
that relationship
form?
How has this
mentor
relationship
influenced your
academic,
extracurricular,
or social life? RQ2
12. Can you tell me about
any friendships you
made on campus that
may have lapsed
because you are no
longer involved in
activities or orgs with
that person? RQ3
Social
penetration,
peer
connectedness
Behaviors/
experiences
13. How has the
pandemic affected
your campus
Are there things
you might have
done if the RQ2, RQ3
Peer
connectedness
perceptions,
Behaviors/
experiences,
social

BUILDING COMMUNITY 126
involvement and your
interaction with other
students?
pandemic had
not occurred?
Are there student
relationships
you’ve formed
because of the
pandemic?
social
penetration
14. Outside of your
formal coursework, in
a typical week what
do you spend most of
your time doing? RQ2
Motivation,
student
involvement
Behaviors/
experiences
15. Would you say that
you spend more time
interacting with
friends in person or
remotely, such as
texting, slack,
gaming, talking on
the phone, zoom,
facetime, etc.?
What do you
think are the
reasons for
(answer)? When
you are spending
time in person
with friends,
what types of
things are you
doing? RQ1
Peer
connectedness
Behaviors/
experiences
16. How strongly
connected do you feel
to (your college) as
an institution?
How do you feel
involvement in
activities,
organizations, or
the relationships
you’ve made
affects your
feelings about
(your college).
RQ1, 2, 3,
4
Peer
connectedness
student
involvement,
motivation,
social
penetration
Behaviors/
experiences,
feelings/
emotions
17. Can you think of
improvements that
could be made to
organizations or
activities that would
have made better
experiences for you? RQ4
Student
involvement
Feelings/
emotions,
Behaviors/
experiences

BUILDING COMMUNITY 127
Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you for sharing your experiences with me today. All of the information will be really
helpful to my study. If I have any follow-up questions, would it be OK to contact you? If so, is
e-mail a good way to get in touch, or would you prefer another way? Thank you again for taking
the time and sharing with me today. Good luck during the rest of your time at (college).

BUILDING COMMUNITY 128
Appendix B
Demographic Survey
1. Where did you attend high school?
2. Did you come directly to this university from high school or transfer from another
college?
3. Current class standing (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior).
4. Have you lived on/near campus or commuted from home?
5. Did previous generations of your family attend college?
6. Gender Identity
7. Ethnic Identity

BUILDING COMMUNITY 129
Appendix C
Newspaper Articles Used in Document Analysis
Item Number Topic
A Commuting
B Reflection/Final Opinion Piece
C Student Advice Column
D Lunar New Year Memories
E Reflection on Student Life
F Suicide Prevention Month
G Movie Viewing and Food
H Campus Culture App
I Reflection/Newsroom Space

BUILDING COMMUNITY 130
Appendix D
Secondary Data
AAU Campus Climate Survey - Spring 2019
Campus Wellbeing Survey - Spring 2020
Campus Wellbeing Survey - Fall 2020
Campus Wellbeing Survey - Spring 2021

BUILDING COMMUNITY 131
Appendix E
IRB Approval

BUILDING COMMUNITY 132
Appendix F
Recruitment Letter
Dear (student’s name) —
Thank you for your willingness to consider being an interview subject for my doctoral
dissertation study. While I provided an overview when we talked in person, the detailed
information about the study is enclosed (Participant Information Sheet).
If you still think you’d like to speak with me, I’d like to try and schedule something within the
next week. Let me know when would be a good time to meet for an interview. The interview
should take about an hour, but try to set aside a 90-minute window in case the discussion goes
longer. One available location to meet for the interview is during off-hours in the campus
newsroom, but we can meet any place you feel comfortable. Please let me know what looks
good on your schedule.
Let me know any questions, etc. you may have as well.
Thank you!
—Jeff Tylicki, Ed.D Candidate - USC Rossier School of Education

BUILDING COMMUNITY 133
Appendix G
Informed Consent
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Student Peer Connectedness
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jeffrey Tylicki, USC Rossier Ed.D Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Marsha Riggio, Ph.D
______________________________________________________________________
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary.
This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE
This qualitative study aims to examine how campus involvement influences college
undergraduate student connections with their peers (other students). You are being
invited as a possible participant because the study seeks to interview undergraduates
from various backgrounds about their experiences in campus organizations and
activities, and how these experiences influence interpersonal connections formed with
other students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
VOLUNTARY STUDY: Participation in this study is VOLUNTARY and you may ask the
researcher questions before agreeing to participate. However, we believe that your
contribution will assist in ensuring that the participants reflect a broad range of
experiences to share. If you agree to participate, at any time you are free to withdraw
from the study. If you choose to withdraw, you will not be asked to give any explanation.
RESEARCHER: The research for this study is being undertaken by JEFFREY TYLICKI,
who is a doctoral student in the USC Rossier School of Education. The study has been
approved by the USC Internal Research Board (IRB).
STUDY PROCEDURES: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be interviewed.
The interview will be recorded with your permission. The interview will be conducted by
the researcher JEFFREY TYLICKI and will last approximately 60 but no more than 90
minutes. We may wish to ask you some follow-up questions at a later date, although
participation in this is also voluntary.
BENEFITS TO PARTICIPATION: The study aims to help Student Affairs professionals
at colleges and universities to design or improve programs that will better facilitate
students making interpersonal connections with their peers. Your shared experiences
will help form the basis of conclusions and recommendations for the benefit of future
students.
RISKS TO PARTICIPATION: While we hope that your experience will be pleasant, it is
possible that some questions regarding your personal experiences may make you

BUILDING COMMUNITY 134
uncomfortable. At any time during the interview, you can choose not to answer a
question or withdraw from the study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no compensation for participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The interview will be entirely confidential, which means that participants will not be
personally identified. The data from all the interviews conducted will be compiled and
some direct quotes from the discussion will be used in the final report, but no individual
identities will be revealed.
STUDY DATA: All the information that we collect during the course of the research will
be kept strictly confidential. You will not be identified in any reports or publications and
your name and other personal information will be kept anonymous. Interviews will be
recorded, transcribed and stored digitally, managed by the researcher for the duration of
the project. Only the researcher and supervisor will have access to the interviews and
personal information.
STUDY REPORT: The research will be written up as a dissertation. If you agree to
participate in this study you may request a summary of the research findings by
contacting the researcher. Upon successful submission of the dissertation, it will be
deposited both in print and online in the USC Library system, to facilitate its use in
further research. The digital online copy of the dissertation will be deposited with USC
Libraries and will be published with open access meaning that it will be available to
internet users with USC Library access. At the end of this project, the audio and digital
data collected from interviews with participants will be destroyed.
FUTURE RESEARCH: The research report may be used as a resource by other
researchers or professionals in the education field for future projects.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any concerns about the project, please speak to the researcher, who should
acknowledge your concerns within ten (10) working days and give you an indication of
how your concern will be addressed. [Researcher & Advisor contact information]

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board. [IRB contact information]

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Lived experiences of athletic administrators advancing athletic programming

PDF

Well-being of school communities

PDF

A phenomenological look into the effect that structured near-peer mentoring programs could have on first-generation college students continuing past freshman year at 4-year universities

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

Dominicana: lived experiences of Dominican women working in the urban K–12 system

PDF

The 5th quarter: investigating career exploration and development of Black football student-athletes

PDF

Underrepresented students with disabilities transitioning into a 4-year university

Pdf

Trauma and low-income elementary students of color

PDF

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

U.S. Mexican adolescent cultural values and prosocial tendencies

PDF

Exploring racialized experiences of Asian Pacific Islander Desi students through Asiancrit theory…

PDF

Understanding experiences of previously incarcerated Black men and employment: a mixed methods study of racial disparities amongst Black men with a prior history of incarceration

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

The lived experiences of Hispanic students with disabilities transitioning to higher education

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

"Sino ka ba?" The impact of community gatherings on Pilipinx American students' identity formation and sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Improving audience development for small town arts non-profits

Asset Metadata

Creator Tylicki, Jeffrey Strout (author)

Core Title Building community among college undergraduates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/18/2023

Defense Date 03/22/2023

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

Tag belonging,campus experience,Community,connectedness,COVID-19,engagement,extracurricular,Generation Z,involvement,Mental Health,mentorship,motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,peer,social penetration,student journalist,student newspaper,wellness

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Riggio, Marsha Boveja (committee chair), Castaneda, Laura (committee member), Trahan, Don (committee member)

Creator Email jefftylicki@att.net,tylicki@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113376969

Unique identifier UC113376969

Identifier etd-TylickiJef-12391.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-TylickiJef-12391

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Tylicki, Jeffrey Strout

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230918-usctheses-batch-1098 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu