University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Students’ Sense of Belonging: College Student and Staff Perspectives During COVID-19
by
Jamie Lea Thompson

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Jamie Lea Thompson 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jamie Lea Thompson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Sheila Bañuelos
Alison Keller Muraszewski, Committee Co-Chair
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Co-Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study examined undergraduate college students’ sense of belonging during the COVID-19
pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging during this time. The social
cognitive theory served as the theoretical model. Three research questions guided this inquiry:
What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now? How do
undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted during the pandemic?
What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of belonging
during the pandemic? The study was conducted using a mixed methods design at a small, private
university in the Southwest region of the United States. Student perceptions of belonging were
gathered via a quantitative survey. Data analyses included descriptive and inferential statistics.
Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with student services staff and analyzed
using open and axial coding and the identification of themes. Findings indicate that while
students had a high sense of belonging at survey completion, they also expressed mixed reactions
about their belonging during the pandemic. Staff identified making connections with students as
the primary strategy to address belonging, described as resources referrals, facilitating
programming, and student employment. Students noted that organizations and in-person events
impacted their belonging. Students also identified mental health resources and university
employees as resources or services. This study addresses a gap in the literature—understanding
belonging in a primarily remote learning setting during the COVID-19 pandemic—and
contributes to the literature by building on specific mechanisms in the institutional environment
that shape belonging.

v
Dedication
To Ainsley Christine and Emily Margaret, my two strong, confident, and courageous daughters
who will create positive change in this world in their own awesome ways in the years to come.
May you always know that you are stronger than you think you are. The love and kindness you
direct towards yourself and share with others will help you overcome obstacles and guide you.

vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of
so many people. I acknowledge my dissertation committee: Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, Dr.
Alison Muraszewski, and Dr. Sheila Bañuelos. My study, and subsequent analysis, is stronger
thanks to your review and feedback. Thank you for being committed to my success and for your
continuous support.
To my partner, Simon. I am deeply grateful for the herculean efforts you undertook to
make this possible for me. Dinners, school lunches, softball, soccer, and basketball practices,
ballet, bedtime, toilet-and-floor cleaning. And so many dishes. At every corner you encouraged
me and provided affirmation. You helped me explore and push through overwhelming
challenges I faced throughout my coursework and during my study. You inquired about my
progress and helped me celebrate the important milestones. Every time I stepped outside to walk
to the back-house, you shouted some version of “You’ve got this!” You believed in me before I
even started this adventure. Thank you.
To Ainsley and Emily. At the time of this writing, you are 10 and 8 years old,
respectively. Your excitement about my dissertation encouraged me during difficult moments. I
still have the “good luck” notes you made me when I started the program. While I missed so
many activities over the last few years, I am grateful for the patience and resilience you
demonstrated. I learn from you every day; I hope that this experience has helped you learn
something about me, including the value of hard work, dedication, and perseverance.
To my family, thank you for listening throughout this journey. During visits to San
Antonio or FaceTime calls, you always inquired about my work. To my parents, Jon and Laura,
thank you for inspiring me to be a lifelong learner. I am a curious collector of information

vii
because of the values you shared and what you modeled for me. Thank you for making this
personal goal of mine within reach and always believing in my abilities.
To my friends, old and new. Thank you for your offers to “take a break” over margaritas,
even when I could not join. Summer fun at the lake, discussions about our next outing, and too
many hilarious texts ensured I did not feel too lonely while I was holed up in the back-house
writing. Your kind gestures to watch the girls and provide dinner did not go unnoticed. I am so
appreciative of your genuine interest in my work and the support you provided to me throughout
the process.
To my colleagues and mentors at Trinity University, I am grateful for your support and
encouragement. Your insight, advice, and offers to help along the way were generous. You
recognized the significance of this experience and supported me along the way.
Finally, to my OCL colleagues and cohort 16. It has been a pleasure getting to know you
and working side by side with you over the last three years. You shaped this experience for me in
important ways. Thank you for being a sounding board, for sharing ideas and feedback to
strengthen my work, and for creating our Trojan community.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements Non-Scale Belonging Items .......................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Introduction to Sense of Belonging .................................................................................... 9
The Relationship Between Distance Education and Sense of Belonging ......................... 17
Strategies for Addressing Belonging ................................................................................ 29
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 38
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 39
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 39
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 42
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 43
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 46

ix
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 56
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 59
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 63
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 63
Findings............................................................................................................................. 67
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 94
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 96
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 96
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 101
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 107
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 109
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 110
References ................................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix A: Survey Data Collection Instrument ....................................................................... 132
Appendix B: Interview Data Collection Instrument ................................................................... 137

x

List of Tables
Table 1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 41
Table 2 Measures of Belonging from Freeman et al. (2007) Subscale Compared to This
Study ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Table 3 Survey Respondent Demograph Non-Scale Belonging Items ic Information by
Class Standing and Gender ........................................................................................................... 65
Table 4 Racial Demographics of Survey Respondents ................................................................. 66
Table 5 Summary of Scales for this Study.................................................................................... 68
Table 6 Summary of Additional Sense of Belonging Items with Original Sources ..................... 70
Table 7 Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables ....................... 75
Appendix A: Survey Data Collection Instrument……………………………………………....131

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1 A Conceptual Framework Illustrating the Interactions Between Social Cognitive
Theory Within the Context of COVID-19 and ERT ..................................................................... 37
Figure 2 Likert Scale Responses to Bollen and Hoyle (1990) Sense of Belonging Items ............ 72
Figure 3 Likert Scale Responses to Johnson et al. (2007) Sense of Belonging Items .................. 72
Figure 4 Likert Scale Responses to O’Meara et al. (2017) Sense of Belonging Items ................. 73
Figure 5 Responses Regarding Belonging During the Pandemic Compared to Now .................. 77
Figure 6 Summary of Strategies and Practices Identified by Staff ............................................... 82
Figure 7 Findings through the Lens of the Conceptual Framework ............................................. 99

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Belonging is a powerful, human need (Maslow, 1962) that supports cognitive processes
and positive emotions, while the absence of belonging negatively impacts health, adjustment,
and wellbeing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Strayhorn, 2019). In college, sense of belonging has
myriad definitions, frequently referenced as a subjective sense of affiliation or feeling like you
belong in the collegiate environment (Hoffman et al., 2002; Sax et al., 2018). Strayhorn’s (2019)
thorough review and synthesis of sense of belonging literature resulted in a working definition
that underscores students’ cognitive evaluation of support on campus and a feeling or experience
of mattering to others within the campus community that drives human behavior. Belonging is a
factor for students remaining in, or withdrawing from, the institution (Berger, 1997; Housmann
et al., 2007; O’Keeffe, 2013). Belonging is not the summation of the total number of social
relationships, but instead an inference about fit, acceptance, respect, or an anticipation of these
feelings (Walton & Brady, 2017). An individual may assess belonging through a number of
worries or questions such as, “Do I have anything in common with people here? Are people like
me valued here, or devalued? Can I be me here?” (Walton & Brady, 2017, p. 272). Sense of
belonging is of particular significance for, and differentially affects, underrepresented student
populations, such as women, Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC; Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Sax et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2019;
Walton & Cohen, 2007), low-income students (Heisserer & Parette, 2002; Strayhorn, 2019),
religious minorities (Strayhorn, 2019), and even commuter students (Harper & Quaye, 2019)
who already feel marginalized and unwelcome in a community.
In March 2020, nearly all higher education institutions (HEIs) delivering face-to-face
instruction across the United States shifted to remote instruction (Gillis & Krull, 2020;
2

Lederman, 2020), affecting approximately 20 million students (Muniz, 2021). As the pandemic
unraveled, a wave of social isolation, anxiety, and uncertainty ensued, worsening students’
mental health, wellbeing, and existing inequalities (Brooks & Grajek, 2020; Gillis & Krull, 2020;
Sahu, 2020). Feelings of isolation and loneliness due to campus restrictions of in-person classes
and social activities, among other campus interventions intended to limit exposure to COVID-19,
raised questions about students’ sense of belonging. Due to the widespread impact of the global
pandemic, data are both unknown and evolving about how college students’ sense of belonging
has been affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even outside of the context of a pandemic,
Strayhorn (2019) noted a gap in the literature about the influence of organizational and
institutional conditions and practices on college students’ sense of belonging. As higher
education leaders continue to navigate the unchartered waters of the pandemic—and even when
the immediate effects of the pandemic are resolved—there is a need to understand students’
sense of belonging during this time and the strategies that address students’ sense of belonging.
As such, this study focused on undergraduate college students’ sense of belonging during the
COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging during this time.
Background of the Problem
Given the sudden and immediate shift to remote learning in March 2020 as a result of a
global pandemic, HEIs quickly adjusted to find ways to support students and faculty in a new
environment (Gillis & Krull, 2020; Lederman, 2020). By late August 2020, only 20% of colleges
and universities were offering classes fully in-person (Boggs et al., 2021), thus accentuating the
continued and long-term challenges of higher education. The shift to remote learning during the
pandemic left college students physically and socially isolated from peers, communal living,
support networks, and access to student services such as mental health and wellness services
3

(Lederer et al., 2021; Schwartz, 2020). While the impact on college student outcomes because of
the pandemic is yet to be fully realized, early data indicate anticipated drops in college
completion rates (Busta, 2020), declining enrollment (National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center, 2021), and a negative effect on student mental health (Anderson, 2020, 2021; Neal, n.d.).
Similarly, the impact of COVID-19 on HEIs and teaching and learning has been far-
reaching, including remote work at home, transitioning to alternative forms of teaching due to
crisis circumstances (known as emergency remote teaching, or ERT; Shin & Hickey, 2020), and
preparing contingency plans for institutional services (Johnson et al., 2020, Krukowski et al.,
2021; Mulla et al., 2020). For example, faculty found themselves with little to no experience for
a rapid transition to online course delivery on top of institutional technical and connectivity
problems—all of which jeopardized best practices for distance learning. Many faculty were
unprepared or underprepared to develop quality online learning experiences for students in this
setting (Brooks & Grajek, 2020; Shin & Hickey, 2020). Administrators and faculty experienced
their own challenges during the pandemic (Brooks & Grajek, 2020; Krukowski et al., 2021;
Mulla et al., 2020; Shin & Hickey, 2020), while at the same time recognizing an increased need
to access and share resources to better support students (Johnson et al., 2020). These immediate
concerns facing higher education leaders illustrate the extensive impact to the learning
environment and the myriad demands leaders have been expected to respond to and solutionize
for in response to the pandemic. With attention given to the immediate needs of ERT and a new
learning environment, it is unknown how institutions addressed students’ sense of belonging.

4

Organizational Context
The study took place at Southwest Regional University (SRU), a pseudonym for the
actual research site. SRU is a fully-accredited HEI in the United States that typically conducts
undergraduate classes in-person. Beginning in March 2020, SRU conducted fully remote or
partially remote (i.e., hybrid) classes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The period of time
in which COVID-19 impacted institutional functions spanned the academic years (AY) 2019–
2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022. Between March 2020 and August 2020, residential buildings
were vacated. Students returned to residential living at reduced capacities starting in Fall 2020,
even when classes were conducted remotely, and residence halls returned to full capacity in Fall
2021 when the majority of classes resumed in-person.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate college students’ sense of
belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging
during this time. Stakeholders in this problem of practice included undergraduate college
students and student services staff. The study focused on students’ current perception of
belonging, as well as their perception of belonging during the pandemic, and the strategies or
practices staff implemented to address belonging during this time.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now?
2. How do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted
during the pandemic?
3. What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of
belonging during the pandemic?
5

Importance of the Study
From a student lens, addressing sense of belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic is
significant because evidence highlights sense of belonging is a factor in student retention and
persistence (Berger, 1997; Housmann et al., 2007; O’Keeffe, 2013) and satisfaction (Thomas et
al., 2014). Students who do not persist (i.e., leave the institution) may lose the many accumulated
benefits that accompany a college degree: higher overall life satisfaction, engaged citizenship
and higher voter rates, better health, and increased wages (American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 2017; Carnevale & Rose, 2015; Caruth, 2018; Perna, 2005). In addition, students
whose fundamental belonging needs are not met cannot fully attend to academic tasks such as
studying, learning, and retaining information (Strayhorn, 2019). Research illustrates that
belonging affects a myriad of student outcomes, including academic, health, and engagement
outcomes (Gopalan & Brady, 2019; Hoffman et al., 2002; Hurtado et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
consequences of an absence of belonging—known as belonging uncertainty or alienation—can
lead to unhappiness, loneliness, and mental health issues, such as suicidal ideation (Hirt et al.,
2008; Kissane & McLaren, 2006), and can affect wellbeing, intellectual achievement, and health
(Walton & Cohen, 2011).
This topic is also significant from a macro lens. For HEIs and a state or government point
of view, student attrition results in an institutional loss of revenue and a waste of taxpayer dollars
(American Institutes for Research, 2012; O’Keeffe, 2013). Given that higher education was
already experiencing increased closures and mergers prior to the pandemic (Aslanian, 2020;
ICEF Monitor, 2018; Seltzer, 2020), increased financial woes during the pandemic further
exacerbated the crisis.
6

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Social cognitive theory is the theoretical framework underpinning this study. Social
cognitive theory examines human learning and behavior as a process that occurs in a reciprocal
relationship between the person (including beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive processes), the
environment, and behavior (Bandura, 1999, 2005). This process is known as triadic reciprocity
(Bandura, 1978, 1983, 1999). Bandura’s (1999) model asserts a bidirectional, dynamic interplay
in which the three elements “operate as interacting determinants that influence one another” (p.
6). These three components (the individual, the environment, and behavior) shape learning and
behavior (Bandura, 1999; Seli, 2020). Bandura’s social cognitive theory is an appropriate theory
for this study and problem of practice because individuals have belonging needs that need to be
fulfilled, which, in turn, affect behaviors. The environmental context influences how and to what
extent these needs are met. Stated another way, students’ sense of belonging (a personal and
cognitive factor of the individual) is influenced by the leadership and organizational practices of
student services staff (the environment), which shape individual student behaviors such as
accessing institutional support services, meeting with a faculty adviser, joining a student
organization, and ultimately, successfully persisting to graduation.
This study was conducted using a convergent, mixed methods strategy. The mixed
methods approach is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methodology and is
achieved by mixing or integrating the data to utilize the strengths of each approach for a stronger
understanding of the problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
convergent mixed methods strategy of inquiry is a design in which qualitative and quantitative
data are collected at the same time, reviewed and analyzed separately, and then combined in
order to compare the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative survey data was
7

collected from undergraduate students at SRU via a sense of belonging scale within an
instrument that included open-ended questions about belonging strategies students accessed or
utilized during the pandemic. At the same time, semi-structured qualitative interview data
explored the sense of belonging strategies implemented by student services staff employed at
SRU.
Definitions
This section defines two key terms related to the central concept of sense of belonging
and the research questions as previously mentioned.
Distance Education, Also Known As Online Learning
A form of “education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students
who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between
the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2021b). Until the pandemic, only 18% of higher education students engaged in fully
distance education programs (Heitz et al., 2020).
Remote Learning, or Emergency Remote Learning (ERT)
The temporary move from in-person or face-to-face teaching to online forms of teaching,
including hybrid forms of teaching, due to crisis circumstances (Heitz et al., 2020; Shin &
Hickey, 2020).
Sense of Belonging, or Belonging
College students’ sense of belonging frequently manifests as academic belonging, social
belonging, and institutional belonging and is defined as a student’s subjective perception of
support on campus (Hoffman et al., 2003; Strayhorn, 2019) and a feeling of mattering to others
within the campus community (O’Keefe, 2013; Sax et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2019; Walton &
8

Brady, 2017.) Most definitions of sense of belonging reference and acknowledge it is a
psychological construct and a fundamental, human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ingram,
2012; Maslow, 1962; Peacock & Cowan, 2019; Strayhorn, 2019).
Organization of the Dissertation
There are five chapters in this dissertation. Chapter 1 prepares the reader for the
dissertation paper by situating the study within a problem of practice, highlighting the
significance of the study, outlining the research methodology, and identifying key concepts
relevant to the concept of sense of belonging. Chapter 2 provides a review and analysis of the
literature on key topics that provide a comprehensive understanding of sense of belonging.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology for the study, including participants in both the quantitative
and qualitative portions of the study. Chapter 4 provides the findings of the mixed methods
research, including qualitative and quantitative findings and how they compare to one another, as
well as answers to the aforementioned research questions. Chapter 5 is a discussion of the
limitations of the study and implications for HEIs, higher education leaders, and researchers. In
addition, this chapter provides recommendations for addressing sense of belonging during the
pandemic and other crisis-oriented contexts.

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
College students’ sense of belonging, a psychological construct, is a well-studied topic in
higher education literature. Students’ sense of belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic is a
dynamic research space at this point in time. The pandemic is still ongoing at the time of this
study and the research is evolving. This literature review contextualizes the problem of practice
by addressing the following topics: (a) defining sense of belonging and discussing ways sense of
belonging is measured, including making connections to related theories and concepts within
higher education; (b) distance education and its relationship with sense of belonging, particularly
during emergencies; (c) the outcomes of belonging; and (d) known strategies to influence sense
of belonging.
Introduction to Sense of Belonging
The literature reflects multiple definitions of and a dynamic, nuanced look at belonging
as a psychological construct. While most definitions of sense of belonging reference and
acknowledge the construct as a fundamental, human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ingram,
2012; Maslow, 1962; Peacock & Cowan, 2019; Strayhorn, 2019), from there, definitions wander.
In addition, sense of belonging is often connected to student departure theory (Tinto, 1993) and
the theories of engagement (Kuh et al., 2007) and involvement (Astin, 1999). Finally,
understanding how belonging is measured through instrumentation helps build a foundation for
understanding the construct.
Defining Sense of Belonging
Belonging consists of feelings of acceptance, being respected, and mattering or feeling
valued in a given setting (O’Keefe, 2013; Sax et al., 2018) and fitting in by way of connections
to a peer group, class, subject, or the institution (Hausman et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2003).
10

Goodenow’s (1993) study of middle school students, cited more than 2,300 times in Google
Scholar, defined sense of belonging as a subjective perception of being accepted, valued,
included, and encouraged by peers and teachers, in addition to feeling important in the classroom
setting. In Ingram’s (2012) review of literature, she found that sense of belonging is often singly
interpreted as social belonging. This aligns with Walton and Cohen’s (2011) work in which the
construct is specifically defined as positive relationships with others, and Hurtado and Carter’s
(1997) influential research that frames belonging as students’ perception of inclusion in the
community. Walton and Brady (2017) recognized that belonging is not the summation of the
total number of social relationships, but rather an inference about fit, acceptance, respect, or an
anticipation of these feelings. An individual may assess belonging through a number of worries
or questions, such as, “Do I have anything in common with people here? Are people like me
valued here, or devalued? Can I be me here?” It is about a “perception of fit between themselves
and a setting” (p. 273). Other researchers define sense of belonging more comprehensively.
Broader definitions of belonging include consideration of both individual-level belonging
and structural, or institutional, belonging. For example, Hoffman et al. (2003) defined belonging
as identification with the institution that reflects students’ integration in the college system. In
comparison, in a qualitative study of students who identify as members of the LGBTQIA+
community, Vaccaro and Newman (2017) found students defined the term as threefold:
belonging in the university, group belonging, and friendship. Similarly, the National Academies
of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) define sense of belonging in three dimensions:
belonging at a place, fitting in, and social integration. Ingram’s (2012) work also identified three
components: social belonging, academic belonging, and perceived institutional support.
11

There is some agreement that belonging can change over time (Good et al., 2012; Ingram,
2012; Sax et al., 2018). Ingram (2012) posits that belonging in a college setting is complex
because of the highly contextual nature and variability of college campuses. Similarly, Good et
al. (2012) and Murphy and Zirkel (2015) raise the question about the variability of belonging in
different contexts. For example, social belonging outside the classroom may be high while
academic belonging in a science class may be low. Most authors acknowledge belonging is a
dynamic construct, though its variability is not established empirically in the research.
In summary, sense of belonging has varying, but related definitions spanning students’
subjective perceptions of academic, social, and institutional fit, as well as an individual-level
sense of being valued by and important to others. Strayhorn’s (2019) thorough review and
synthesis of the sense of belonging literature resulted in a definition that underscores students’
assessment of support on campus and a feeling or experience of mattering to others within the
campus community that drives human behavior. Strayhorn’s holistic view provides greater depth
to our current understanding of the literature, which primarily examines belonging as social in
nature or centered within the classroom as academic belonging. For the purposes of this
dissertation, sense of belonging is operationalized as a student’s perception of support on campus
and a feeling of mattering to others within the campus community; this often includes academic
belonging, social belonging, and institutional belonging (Hausman et al., 2007; Hoffman et al.,
2003; Ingram, 2012; O’Keefe, 2013; Sax et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2019; and Walton & Cohen,
2011).
Measuring Sense of Belonging
Sense of belonging scales frequently use general measures to examine students’
subjective sense of psychological belonging. Scales in which participants indicate levels of
12

agreement with statements are common. The following are an array of examples of typical
statements found within belonging scales identified in the literature: “I feel a sense of belonging
at this college” (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Maestas et al., 2007; Museus &
Maramba, 2011; O’Meara et al., 2017; Ostrove & Long, 2007), “I feel like a member of this
college community” (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007; Maestas et al., 2007; Museus
& Maramba, 2011), “I feel like I fit in at this college” (Johnson et al., 2007; Ostrove & Long,
2007), “I see myself as a part of this college community” (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Maestas et
al., 2007; Museus & Maramba, 2011), “I feel comfortable at college” (Johnson et al., 2007),
“College is supportive of me” and “I would choose the same college again” (Johnson et al.,
2007), and “I feel valued as a person” (O’Meara et al., 2017).
The varied use of specific belonging scales provides useful context to understand how
belonging is measured. Bollen and Hoyle’s (1990) scale of perceived cohesion is an influential
form of measurement used by Hurtado and Carter (1997), Hausman et al. (2007), and Museus
and Maramba (2011), among others. The scale of perceived cohesion is a six-question, one-
dimensional scale that measures perceptions of belonging and feelings of morale (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990). Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) seminal examination of the academic and social
components that enhance Hispanic/Latino engagement and belonging, cited more than 2,600
times in Google Scholar, utilized only the belonging questions (n = 3) from Bollen and Hoyle’s
instrument. According to Tovar and Simon (2010), this scale remains one of the most prominent
scales to assess sense of belonging. Other measurements focus on pride in (Johnson et al., 2007)
or satisfaction with the institution (Freeman et al., 2007). The 26-question belonging scale
developed by Hoffman et al. (2003) articulates five components: students’ perceptions of peer
support, faculty support/comfort, classroom comfort, isolation, and empathetic understanding.
13

Further complicating the measurement of belonging, Walton and Cohen's (2007) widely-known
experimental study on a belonging intervention measures the concept via academic fit, in
addition to enjoyment of academic work and the potential to be successful in college.
Other studies combine or modify multiple instruments to measure belonging. For
example, in a study of graduate students, O’Meara et al. (2017) used the foundational constructs
of sense of belonging in addition to items in the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL)
to generate their sense of belonging survey items (n = 7). Freeman et al. (2007) adapted
Goodenow's (1993) Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) for middle school
students to include belonging within four units: class belonging; university belonging;
professors’ caring; social acceptance. Ingram (2012) has observed that the measurement of
belonging in the K–12 setting appears to be more narrowly defined and nuanced, which may
serve as a guide for higher education.
New research is also shaping the measurement of sense of belonging. In their
development of a predictive retention model, David et al. (2019) utilized a Sense of Belonging
Index that measures two aspects, belonging to the institution (social belonging) and belonging to
a major (academic belonging). This tool captures students who may be high-achieving, but may
be at risk for non-retention due to low social belonging—a group of students that otherwise may
go unnoticed. Thus, their work has implications to use predictive measures outside of academic
performance to assess student success. New research from Gopalan and Brady (2020) used data
from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study to look at belonging. Their study
provided the first examination of a national data set that included a single item about belonging
(“I feel that I am part of [SCHOOL]”). The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Study is the only nationally representative data set that measures college students’ belonging.
14

Gopalan and Brady (2020) suggest that future research and measures of belonging should
examine how contextual factors, such as institutional efforts and practices of individual
instructors and staff members, affect belonging. The measurement of belonging to predict and
measure student outcomes is increasingly important, particularly given the pressure on HEIs to
retain students and address low completion rates.
The review of literature underscores a primarily one-dimensional approach to measuring
sense of belonging as a psychological construct. Nonspecific statements in which participants
select a level of agreement are common. A number of factors, including the pressure to retain
and graduate students, in combination with advances in technological and software platforms to
measure micro- and macro-level student success measures, have the power to shape how sense of
belonging is measured in the future. In addition to defining and measuring belonging,
understanding various tangential theories is necessary to fully grasp the construct of sense of
belonging within higher education and student development literature.
Related Theories
The literature draws connections between sense of belonging and three distinct, but
related, seminal works: Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure, Astin’s (1999) theory of
involvement, and Kuh and colleagues’ (2007) theory of student engagement. Each of these
theories makes associations between what students do in college with outcomes such as personal
learning and development (Astin & Sax, 1998; Harper & Quaye, 2007), persistence rates (Astin,
1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993), and more. These related theories support the
importance of belonging and illustrate the complex relationship between multiple factors that
shape student success.

15

Student Departure Theory
Tinto (1993) examined the process of being integrated into the collegiate environment via
campus communities. His theory of student departure (modified three times between 1976 and
1993; Hurtado & Carter, 1997) looks at three key determinants of student persistence and a
student’s decision to leave college: pre-college characteristics or traits, student commitment to
the institution, and social and academic integration (Tinto, 1993). Academic and social
integration, the cornerstones of Tinto’s theory, are believed to affect student retention the most.
The relationship between Tinto’s research and sense of belonging is made clear through various
belonging definitions. For example, Hoffman et al. (2003) define sense of belonging as a sense
of affiliation and identification with the institution and reflects students’ integration in the
college structure, or system. However, some researchers suggest that Tinto’s theory is
incomplete in that it fails to take into consideration the experiences of underrepresented students
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007). The seminal work of Hurtado and Carter (1997)
specifically examines Latino student success. They point out that Tinto’s position of
participation in the college environment emphasized acculturation to the majority population
experience, which may not resonate with or promote Latino student success. As such, Hurtado
and Carter’s research attempted to bridge this gap by examining which components of academic
and social integration enhance Hispanic/Latino engagement and belonging. In summary, the
connection between sense of belonging and Tinto’s theory of departure is illustrated in the
language itself and in how sense of belonging is defined and measured throughout the literature.
Theory of Involvement and Theory of Engagement
Two additional concepts, Astin’s (1999) student involvement theory and Kuh and
colleagues’ (2007) theory of student engagement, have ties to sense of belonging. In these
16

theories, involvement is distinguished from engagement, though some researchers choose to not
make a fine distinction (Strayhorn, 2019; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Involvement is physical and
psychological energy (e.g., behaviors and actions) devoted to the academic experience by the
student (Astin, 1999), while engagement is defined as the time and effort devoted to
educationally-purposeful practices inside and outside the classroom that lead to student success
(Kuh et al., 2007). Strayhorn (2019) points out that the concept of engagement includes both
what students do and what institutions do, such as investing in specific resources that benefit
students and structuring learning opportunities that encourage participation. Strayhorn (2019)
and Harper and Quaye (2015), among other authors, note that it is possible to be involved
without being actively engaged. Speaking to student success outcomes, Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005) state, “the impact of college is largely determined by individual effort and involvement in
the academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings on a campus” (p. 602). Strayhorn
(2019) provides a relevant summary note on the tangential concepts and theories discussed
herein; specifically, “what students do (involvement) can engender or diminish students’ sense of
belonging in college, which may provide clues about what institutions can do (engagement) to
encourage students sense of belonging in college” (p. 156).
Like sense of belonging, these frameworks emphasize not only student involvement and
engagement in the campus community, but also the role of institutional practices and the
strategic use of resources to shape student engagement (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Harper & Quaye,
2015), ultimately influencing persistence and retention (Astin, 1999; Harper & Quaye, 2015;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Strayhorn, 2019; Tinto, 1993). Later in this literature review,
strategies to address sense of belonging will be discussed. This is significant because policies
17

and practices used to address engagement and belonging are identified as the most important
factors (Astin, 1999; Pike & Kuh, 2005).
The Relationship Between Distance Education and Sense of Belonging
Given forced school closures and a reliance on remote learning as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, it is relevant to examine sense of belonging in distance education environments.
The concept of sense of belonging in face-to-face (or campus-based) learning is well-established
and recognized as important (Peacock et al., 2020). An annual Department of Education report
on the status of distance education modified its terminology from online learning to distance
education in 2017. This dissertation will utilize the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) definition for distance education as “education that uses one or more
technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to
support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously
or asynchronously” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021b). The following section will
provide an overview of distance education and Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) as a result of
the pandemic.
Overview of Distance Education
Distance education has experienced significant growth in the last decade, particularly
compared to declining campus-based enrollments. In 2011, nearly a decade ago, 31% of all U.S.
higher education students were taking at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Today,
while postsecondary enrollment is experiencing 1–2% declines annually, online education is
growing by 5% annually (Bouchrika, 2020). In Fall 2018, approximately 6.9 million students, or
nearly 35% of all students enrolled in U.S. higher education, were taking at least one distance
education course (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021a). Distance education is
18

dominated by undergraduate enrollments—comprising nearly five times as many graduate
students (Seaman et al., 2018). Of all students enrolled in distance education, approximately half
are exclusively taking distance courses (Seaman et al., 2018). It is expected that the pandemic
will increase this growth exponentially due to anticipated disruption in the education sector
(Bouchrika, 2020). Despite growth in this sector, critiques about the value, quality, and outcomes
of distance education are persistent.
The Role of Sense of Belonging in Distance Education
While sense of belonging was previously defined and established in this literature review,
some studies clarify this construct within the context of distance education. Building on John
Dewey’s interpretation of education as a social experience, communities of inquiry (CoI) is a
term used to define, describe, and measure a collaborative online learning experience (Garrison
et al., 2010). Regarding the importance of belonging, CoI “establish a feeling of belonging to the
critical community that must develop over time” (Garrison, 2011, p. 32). The CoI framework
identifies three key elements for online learning: social presence (purposeful community),
cognitive presence (reflective inquiry), and teaching presence (structure and process). Similarly,
the work of Koole and Parchoma (2013) and McConnell (2006) reflects online learning as a
collaborative and iterative process that involves an exchange and dialogue with others. In
Peacock et al. (2020), distance learners defined sense of belonging as “feeling a part of a
community, of belonging to a group of learners with a common goal, and of engaging with
learning materials and other learners and [faculty and staff]” (p. 24). To summarize, the literature
frames distance learning environments as communities in which learners engage with one
another in an iterative process—an element of sense of belonging.
19

Building and enhancing sense of belonging within distance education environments leads
to several positive outcomes. Some researchers believe that fostering sense of belonging for
distance learners can influence perceptions of the quality of online interactions (Diep, 2017),
enhance the educational experience (Brown et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2014), improve retention
(Peacock et al., 2020), and address non-completion rates (Delnoij et al., 2020). For example, a
significant challenge for online learners is to overcome the “lone wolf” concept and learn to
value social relationships among various populations in a virtual setting (Brown et al., 2015). As
Zhao and Kuh (2004) noted for face-to-face learners, these positive social relationships in
learning communities lead to better performance and greater satisfaction. Brown et al. (2015)
indicate the same is true for online learners and that technology can be leveraged to create
opportunities for interactions between faculty and peers. In a small study of 12 postgraduate
distance learners in Scotland, all participants noted that sense of belonging was important to their
online learning experience and preventing isolation. Similarly, in a study of Australian distance
learners, sense of belonging emerged as an important component to the educational experience,
finding “both staff and students expressed greater satisfaction with online courses that
successfully fostered a sense of belonging among students” (Thomas et al., 2014, p. 76). In
contrast, a study of adult distance learners in Belgium found feelings of isolation and
dissatisfaction with the learning experience when a community was not fostered in the online
environment (Diep, 2017). A literature review of non-completion in distance education identified
seven strategies to influence completion: a supportive network and faculty-student interactions
were two such strategies connected to sense of belonging (Delnoij et al., 2020).
In summary, the benefits of addressing sense of belonging in distance education via
engaged and interactive learning environments are considerable. Strategies include increasing
20

faculty and student interactions and building a supportive network, while outcomes include
greater satisfaction with the educational experience, better academic performance, and increased
retention. Next, distance education is distinguished from emergency remote teaching, a practice
common during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) Overview
Scholars articulate a clear distinction between online learning (i.e., distance education)
and ERT that is offered in a crisis or disaster (Hodges et al., 2020; Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2021;
Shin & Hickey, 2020). ERT is defined as the temporary move from in-person or face-to-face
teaching to online forms of teaching, including hybrid forms of teaching, due to crisis
circumstances (Heitz et al., 2020; Shin & Hickey, 2020). ERT is not the same as online learning,
and, in fact, has different goals—specifically, to ensure the temporary continuance of learning in
an emergency situation (Hodges et al., 2020). Other examples of ERT outside of the COVID-19
pandemic include: educating girls in Afghanistan amidst violence and teaching children during
widespread weather disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. ERT is a tool for educators in dire
circumstances, and its use during COVID-19 is important to understand and study.
The implementation of ERT during the pandemic provides a plethora of evidence to
examine and from which to learn. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted
educators, academic institutions, scholars, and students is yet to be fully comprehended (Stewart,
2021). While distance learning was a well-studied subject prior to the pandemic (Buttler et al.,
2020; Means et al., 2009), there will be future crises that will necessitate ERT. Thus, we can
apply lessons, both positive and negative, from the pandemic to future situations.

21

Positive Experiences With ERT in COVID-19
Many scholars approached the pandemic as an opportunity to research and learn about
the impact of ERT in education, resulting in data that illustrates both positive and negative
experiences (Stewart, 2021). Positive experiences include improved learning outcomes and
academic performance, examples of smooth transitions to ERT, and opportunities for instructors
to learn new skills. Two studies in Spain found an increase in students’ academic performance
during ERT (Gonzalez et al., 2020; Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2021). Researchers in Saudi Arabia
identified positive outcomes of a shift to ERT, including improved learning outcomes
(Abdulrahim & Mabrouk, 2020). For students studying computer science or related fields, the
transition to ERT was less disruptive (Crick et al., 2020). In Chile, instructors indicated ERT was
an opportunity to experiment with new tools without typical punitive risks given the situation
(Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020). ERT was also seen as a forced opportunity to introduce
online learning in a change-resistant culture in Oman (Osman, 2020). Positive experiences with
ERT during the pandemic are in the minority compared to the myriad negative experiences and
challenges. Notably, the examination of positive experiences with ERT during the onset of the
pandemic primarily come from international literature.
Negative Experiences With ERT in COVID-19
Despite some positive experiences with ERT, negative experiences were far more
pervasive (Stewart, 2021). Ranging from students’ uncertainty about assignments (Alqurshi,
2020) to instructor attempts to simply mimic face-to-face content in an online format (Van
Heuvelen et al., 2020) the challenges were ubiquitous. Makeshift and temporary student learning
spaces created distractions (Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020), which ultimately led to
reduced engagement with peers and instructors and diminished satisfaction (Alqurshi, 2020;
22

Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020). As identified in a literature review of ERT, mental health
issues ranged from stress, decreased motivation, confusion, anxiety and depression, feelings of
remoteness and isolation, and more (Stewart, 2021). For example, in a study of 270 students in
the United States, Aguilera-Hermida (2020) found that students experienced significant
emotional challenges during the pandemic: stress, anxiety, worry about getting sick, and mental
health. Fatigue and burnout were often the result of managing multiple responsibilities such as
caregiving and extra workloads (Sangster et al., 2020). Finally, technology was a barrier for
many individuals, including internet and computer access (Alqurshi, 2020; Gillis & Krull, 2020).
This reality heightened existing inequalities present in the “digital divide,” including a
disproportionate impact for marginalized populations (Stewart, 2021).
Sense of Belonging in ERT
The shift to ERT during the pandemic reflected a non-physical, non-institutional, and
non-campus-based space—underscoring the need to define and conceptualize belonging in a
different, nuanced way. Gravett and Ajjawai (2021) provide a novel definition of sense of
belonging in a remote environment as a continuous, multiplicitous, dynamic experience that
waxes and wanes over time. Through this definition, the authors posit that each learning
encounter and personal interaction could be considered an active opportunity for belonging. As
Bower (2019) and Gonzalez et al. (2020) note, when used effectively, this form of learning
allows instructors and students to mutually engage and collaborate.
Recruiting and retaining students during a crisis is especially difficult (Wester et al.,
2021) and added to this context is evidence of the challenge of cultivating a sense of belonging
in distance education, compared to face-to-face learning (Peacock & Cowan, 2019; Thomas et
al., 2014). The number of studies examining belonging during the pandemic within the context
23

of ERT is growing. Most studies focus on changes in students’ belonging in ERT settings, while
a smaller number of studies posit possible strategies for addressing belonging in ERT.
Students’ sense of belonging within ERT settings varied. A study of 73 STEM students at
23 institutions found that sense of belonging did not significantly change from pre-online
learning to post-online learning during the Spring 2020 semester (Wester et al., 2021). Students’
behavioral engagement shifted—they spent less time actively engaging in class while prioritizing
out-of-class meetings and communication with faculty. The fact that belonging was unchanged
despite less classroom engagement likely reflects the significance of faculty-to-student
interactions. The authors note that sense of belonging is something instructors work to steadily
cultivate throughout the year; thus, the fact that it was unchanged is not ideal. In contrast, a
longitudinal three-year study of computing majors in Britain found a larger decline in sense of
belonging over the course of a few months during the pandemic than was observed in the prior
two years (Mooney & Becker, 2021). Interestingly, students who identified as men and non-
minority students experienced the most significant reduction in belonging during this time
period. Similar to Mooney and Becker’s (2021) findings, a national Australian study of higher
education identified an 11% decline in “belonging to the university” between 2019
(prepandemic) to survey administration in 2020 (Social Research Centre, 2021). In the United
States and Canada, the National Survey of Student Engagement (n.d.) administered in Spring
2020 established the following results from respondents (n = 381,739): students feel like a part
of the community at their institution (77% strongly agree or agree); students feel valued by their
institution (78% strongly agree or agree); and students feel comfortable being themselves at their
institution (90% strongly agree or agree).
24

Some research identified specific strategies to address belonging in ERT settings. Tice et
al. (2021) suggested breaking lectures into smaller pieces, allowing students time to get to know
each other by avoiding the reshuffling of groups (or breakout rooms in Zoom), building student-
instructor and student-student relationships by opening Zoom classrooms early to create the
opportunity for informal conversation, providing agency to students to direct questions and
facilitate discussions, and being available to students outside of Zoom. Heider (2021) indicated
similar strategies for enhancing belonging, including creating a communication plan for the
class, developing subcommunities for online learners, creating opportunities for information and
expertise sharing via study groups, and more. Freedman and Voelker-Morris (2021) present
numerous course design strategies across three categories (class interactions, individual
engagement, and feedback strategies), including playing music as students enter class and
making assignments available far in advance.
Noticeably absent from the most recent literature emerging from the pandemic is data
about sense of belonging outside the classroom. The aforementioned section on sense of
belonging in ERT reveals individual studies in a variety of academic settings and contexts with
an emphasis on the impact to student learning and academic success. In contrast, studies
exploring the impact of the pandemic on social and institutional belonging, including strategies
to address remote community development and social integration, are negligible. This study will
help to fill this gap by examining belonging from a holistic lens and engaging multiple
stakeholders, both students and faculty and staff, in the pursuit of understanding this unique
landscape.

25

The Significance of Addressing Sense of Belonging
Positive Outcomes of Belonging
There is myriad evidence that links high sense of belonging to a variety of positive
outcomes. Belonging is connected to persistence and retention (Maestas et al., 2007; Murphy et
al., 2020; Strayhorn, 2019;), academic and social integration (Freeman et al., 2007; Goodenow,
1993; Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011), and well-being (Brady et al., 2020; Stebleton et al., 2014),
particularly for underrepresented student populations (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter,
1997). Recent evidence indicates interventions to positively impact belonging may last beyond
college and positively impact psychological well-being, career-satisfaction and success, and
community involvement and leadership (Brady et al., 2020).
Academic Outcomes
Sense of belonging is key to retention in college (Binning et al., 2020; Hausmann et al.,
2007; Maestas et al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2020; Strayhorn, 2019), particularly for students of
color (Maestas et al., 2007). A study of more than 500 first year students at a large, public
institution found that sense of belonging predicted intentions to persist (Hausmann et al., 2007).
The findings of O’Meara et al. (2017) suggest sense of belonging influences retention and
success for graduate students. Binning et al. (2020) reported an overall ecological benefit to the
classroom following a belonging intervention. Gains included intervention participants taking
advantage of learning opportunities and completing their courses in two semesters following the
intervention, among other benefits. Relatedly, the effects of a belonging intervention in Yeager et
al. (2016) resulted in increased full-time enrollment in the first year for disadvantaged students.
Grade point average (GPA), an indicator of student success, is connected to sense of
belonging. As observed in a randomized, controlled experiment that took place across three
26

institutions, Yeager et al. (2016) found that sense of belonging is associated with higher GPA.
Similarly, Walton and Cohen (2011), seminal researchers on this topic, conducted a longitudinal
belonging intervention study over three years and found GPA increased for African American
students compared to multiple control groups. The effect reduced the achievement gap between
African American and European American students by 50%. “It prevented students from seeing
adversity on campus as an indictment of their belonging” (Walton & Cohen, 2011, p. 1447). In
another study of 238 first year students at a southeastern university in the United States, Freeman
et al. (2007) identified correlations between class belonging and academic self-efficacy, intrinsic
motivation, and task value, among other findings. Goodenow’s (1993) study of middle school
students—a frequently-cited piece of the literature—found that belonging and teacher support
were significantly associated with academic effort and grades. Using an intervention to
normalize social and academic adversity, Binning et al. (2020) found the intervention group had
higher course grades and addressed underperformance where gaps had previously existed for the
underrepresented and minority population. Interestingly, in Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) study of
Latino students, academic performance was not correlated with (positively or negatively) sense
of belonging. The researchers indicate this may suggest that sense of belonging for Latino
students is more closely associated with other activities.
Well-Being Outcomes
Well-being, a broad construct that has multiple components such as mental health,
physical health, and more, is linked to sense of belonging in college students. The work of Fink
(2014) illustrates that strong sense of belonging is a predictor for flourishing, or positive mental
health. In a study of first-generation students, greater belonging was associated with fewer
instances of feeling stressed, depressed, or upset (Stebleton et al., 2014). Walton and Cohen’s
27

(2011) study found that African American participants in a belonging intervention self-reported
improvement in health and wellbeing and reduced the number of doctor visits during the three-
year observation period. This is significant because this type of intervention can have broad
implications for underrepresented students in addressing social inequalities in both health and
academic achievement. Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine (2017) identified that belonging can lead to several positive collegiate outcomes, such
as well-being, engagement, and success.
Negative Consequences of Low Sense of Belonging
The inability to achieve a positive sense of belonging may lead to negative consequences
and outcomes (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hausmann et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007). For
example, low sense of belonging leads to feelings of alienation, disengagement, and departing
higher education (Sax et al., 2018). Yeager et al. (2016) found correlational data that indicate
students who identified that they may not belong in college were less likely to persist through the
first year of college. The “presence of initial doubt about whether they would fit in” was the
greatest predictor of their success in college (p. 3343). In summary, low sense of belonging in
college students has deleterious effects.
Consequences to Well-Being
Low sense of belonging negatively impacts well-being. Low sense of belonging had a
direct effect on the severity of depression in a sample of men and women with a history of
depression (Choenarom et al., 2005). For ethnic students in the Gummadam et al. (2016) study,
sense of belonging was found to be negatively associated with depressive symptoms. Ultimately,
the perception of mattering to others decreases feelings of marginalization (Baumeister & Leary,
28

1995) and as noted by Schlossberg (1989), the opposite perspective, feeling insignificant to
others, may lead to an overall sense of existential meaninglessness.
Belonging Uncertainty
In HEIs, underrepresented student populations (also called minoritized or minority
students in the literature), such as racial minorities, first generation college students, and sexual
and gender minorities, may hold stigmatized identities and can experience stereotype threat and
belonging uncertainty (Steele, 1997; Strayhorn, 2019; Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011). Belonging
uncertainty is a construct common to underrepresented populations who experience
stigmatization and negative stereotyping and manifests as a persistent concern about whether one
fits in (Walton & Carr, 2012; Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011). Steele and Aronson (1995) also
point out that negative stereotypes can trigger psychological processes that disrupt performance.
Being aware of stigmas and stereotypes sensitizes individuals to their status in a group. This is
called social-identity threat (Garcia & Cohen, 2013; Murphy & Taylor, 2012; Steele et al., 2002)
and can also show up when individuals are worried that poor performance will solidify a
stereotype about intelligence for a specific population (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Multiple
researchers have found that underrepresented students have lower sense of belonging and face
roadblocks to retention and success (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2019). As an example
of a roadblock, Ostrove (2007) found that social class was significantly negatively related to
sense of belonging and predicted adjustment to college, quality of college experience, and
academic performance. These findings align with existing literature that students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to feel alienated (Ostrove, 2003; Walpole, 2003).
Ultimately, belonging uncertainty results in a negative association with student outcomes such as
achievement, performance, and well-being (College Transition Collaborative, 2020).
29

Academic Consequences of Belonging Uncertainty
Belonging uncertainty for underrepresented students and students who experience racial
or ethnic stigma differentially shapes belonging in academic contexts compared to White, or
majority, peers (Murphy & Zirkel, 2015; Steele, 1997). An absence of belonging in academic
domains may account for under-participation above and beyond the possibility of academic
underperformance (Good et al., 2012). “It is not hard to imagine that stereotyped individuals may
be less interested in and less willing to pursue a domain of study in which their sense of
belonging has been undermined, despite their high achievement” (Good et al., 2012, p. 701).
Belonging uncertainty results in less time and energy spent on academics and learning
(Strayhorn, 2019). Similarly, Zirkel’s (2004) study of elementary and middle school students
found greater social isolation and a negative correlation between isolation and interest in
academic work for underrepresented students. Sax et al. (2018) examined belonging along racial
and gender gaps in computer science courses and found that women report lower belonging than
men. According to Barker et al. (2014), an absence of belonging, in addition to being a minority
and confronting stereotypes, can lead to switching a major.
Strategies for Addressing Belonging
The literature on belonging frequently falls into two categories: (a) belonging
interventions and their outcomes and (b) an examination of belonging within specific
environments and contexts. Both categories provide an opportunity to examine strategies for
addressing belonging, either via modifying environments or implementing an intervention. Prior
to reviewing strategies, it is worth noting the possibility of variability of belonging within
different contexts (Good et al., 2012; Murphy & Zirkel, 2015; Strayhorn, 2019) and at different
times (Good et al., 2012; Ingram, 2012; Sax et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2019). This observation
30

connects to a previous discussion within the literature review in which Gravett and Ajjawai’s
(2021) work underscores that remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic requires a more
nuanced and dynamic understanding of belonging that is not static. Furthermore, developing a
sense of belonging is often tied to how well a student initially adjusts to the collegiate
environment (Hausmann et al, 2007); therefore, the timing of belonging strategies matters, too.
As the literature demonstrates, employing strategies to enhance belonging may be complex.
The Concept of Belonging Is Shaped by Multiple Contexts
There are many elements of the HEI environment that shape and influence college
students’ sense of belonging. Researchers have identified academic integration (Freeman et al.,
2007; Hausmann et al., 2007), peer and faculty interactions (Hoffman et al., 2003; O’Meara et
al., 2017; Sax et al., 2018), representation of one’s identity within the academic environment
(Murphy & Zirkel, 2015; Good et al., 2012), living in the residence halls (Berger, 1997; Johnson
et al., 2007), use of campus resources (Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Yeager et al., 2016), and
membership in student organizations (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2019; Yeager et al.,
2016) to contribute to sense of belonging. These concepts fall within the familiar buckets of
academic integration and social integration (see Tinto, 1993). Academic integration, social
integration, and the timing of these components are subsequently described.
Academic Integration
Academic belonging is influenced by integration into the academic domain and peer and
faculty relationships inside and outside of the classroom. Hurtado et al. (2007) found that
managing the academic environment is a key component to feeling a part of campus life for all
first-year students. In a study of computer science courses, two environmental factors positively
impacted sense of belonging: feeling supported by the department and feeling supported by peers
31

(Sax et al., 2018). Likewise, Freeman et al. (2007) found correlations between sense of class
belonging and academic self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and task value; and sense of class
belonging and perceptions of instructors’ warmth and opening, encouragement, and organization.
Conditions within the academic environment, specifically professional relationships between
faculty and the student, significantly influence sense of belonging (O’Meara et al., 2017). For
example, students who have a relationship with a faculty or staff member are better able to
receive feedback and engage in other learning opportunities (Walton & Cohen, 2007). Hurtado
and Carter (1997) identified a relationship between sense of belonging and frequent discussions
about academic content with peers outside of class. Specifically, students who tutored other
students and frequently engaged with faculty outside of class reported a higher sense of
belonging than those who did not. According to Hausmann et al. (2007), institutions should
ensure students become integrated into the academic culture of the institution to prevent a
decline in belonging.
Representation in academic environments also shapes belonging. Murphy and Zirkel
(2015) discovered that all participants (regardless of race) in one particular experiment
anticipated a greater sense of belonging in college majors where they perceived their race to be
represented. One study established a Sense of Belonging to Math Scale with participants from a
highly selective university in the northeast region of the United States (Good et al., 2012). They
found that low sense of belonging mediated women’s interest to pursue math in the future, thus
underscoring the importance of addressing feelings of membership and acceptance in the math
domain to confront the representation gap between males and females in math.
32

Social Integration
The relationship between social integration and belonging is established in several studies
(Berger, 1997; Braxton et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2007). In particular, both Berger (1997) and
Johnson et al. (2007) noted the positive association between living in residence halls and sense of
belonging, possibly due to both the intensity of relationships and intimacy of a shared living
space. Berger’s (1997) study at a predominantly White institution (PWI) found that White
students were more likely to identify with a residential community as a form of social support.
Given the research site, Berger noted that students of color may have to look beyond the
residence halls for social support in a community.
There is a relationship between campus resources and belonging in the literature.
Students who feel they belong are more likely to find and use campus resources (Gopalan &
Brady, 2020; Yeager et al., 2016). This behavior is associated with success in college. Another
resource, providing opportunities for student involvement, enhances belonging (Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2019; Yeager et al., 2016). In their study of Latino students, Hurtado
and Carter (1997) found that memberships in social-community organizations had the most
significant association with sense of belonging, while membership in ethnic-specific
organizations was not associated with greater belonging. Hurtado and Carter (1997) posit that
members of ethnic organizations may simultaneously experience marginalization and group
cohesion within these organizations.
Timing of Belonging Strategies
The earlier students achieve a sense of belonging, the greater the positive outcomes. As
found by Murphy and Zirkel (2015), self-reported experiences of belonging early in the first
semester of college predicted second-semester grades for students of color. Similarly, as reported
33

by Hausmann et al. (2007), students with greater sense of belonging at the outset of their first
year reported more peer-group interactions, interactions with faculty, peer support, and parental
support (Hausmann et al., 2007). The Hausmann et al. (2007) study, in particular, suggests that
early experiences with social support and interactions in the university setting are better
determinants for belonging than students’ background or academic experiences.
Belonging Interventions
The outcomes of belonging interventions within varied contexts are popular in the
literature. “Lay theory” belonging interventions are aimed at normalizing the transition to college
and emphasizing that early struggles, including a lack of belonging, are not static and permanent
(Yeager et al., 2016). In a quasi-experimental study of a social belonging intervention consisting
of a video that normalizes belonging over time in college, followed by small group discussions,
Patterson et al. (2017) found that experimental participants re-enrolled at a higher rate than the
control group (though not statistically significant). Consistent with findings from Walton and
Cohen (2011), the experimental group had a statistically significant higher GPA. Moreover,
Yeager et al. (2016) found that a belonging intervention administered to incoming students prior
to matriculation promoted peer network and mentor relationships. For underrepresented
populations, the gains were substantial. Specifically, the intervention reduced the achievement
gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students by 31–40%. Other outcomes
included improved GPA and higher rates of enrollment for intervention participants. A study of
first year engineering students in Canada administered two interventions that helped women
navigate the “chilly” climate of the male-dominated field of engineering by helping women to
develop social networks with male engineers and manage stress stemming from marginalization
(Walton et al., 2015). Both interventions also raised women’s GPAs, eliminating the gender
34

achievement gap in this study. As noted previously by Hurtado and Carter (1997), Sax et al.
(2018), and Walton and Cohen (2011), peer relationships and networks support sense of
belonging.
In summary, there are many factors that shape students’ sense of belonging and serve as
strategies to enhance belonging. Managing the academic or classroom environment, encouraging
academic integration, creating opportunities for peer and faculty interactions, consideration of
on-campus residential opportunities, and enhancing access to a variety of campus resources are
all contexts HEIs can shape and modify to build students’ sense of belonging. Additionally,
belonging interventions exist as a strategy to enhance belonging. As demonstrated through the
literature, belonging interventions have the potential to reduce social inequality and shape
students’ transition to college (Yeager et al., 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Walton et al., 2015).
Conceptual Framework
Social Cognitive Theory
To examine the problem of practice, a conceptual framework was used. The overarching
framework is social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory, an evolution of social learning
theory, was developed by preeminent psychologist Albert Bandura and aims to explain human
behavior (Bandura, 1978). The theory establishes human functioning as a relationship between
personal, behavioral, and environmental forces (Bandura, 1978, 2005). Personal factors include
cognitive processes, beliefs, self-perceptions, and expectations. In this model, cognitive
processes can exert determinant influence (Bandura, 2001). Restated, cognitive processes can
shape decision-making and behavior. Similarly, the environment component of the model
assumes an interdependent relationship with organizations, social systems, and even the physical
environment and is influenced, in part, by a person’s actions and own making (Bandura, 1978).
35

Both personal factors and the environment produce behavioral effects. Taken together,
Bandura’s (1999) model asserts a bidirectional, dynamic interplay in which the three elements
“operate as interacting determinants that influence one another” (p. 6)—this process is known as
triadic reciprocity. Moreover, this reciprocal relationship is continuous (Bandura, 1978), though
not simultaneous (Bandura, 1983). In other words, personal factors, behavior, and the
environment continuously exert mutual action resulting in the production of effects; however, the
effects “do not spring forth all at once” and instead occur over time (Bandura, 1983, p. 168). The
reciprocal and bidirectional relationship between the three components of the model represent a
contrast to other social learning theories in which the relationship is understood to be
unidirectional or partially bidirectional.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory is an appropriate theory to examine college students’
sense of belonging and the strategies implemented to address sense of belonging because the
model assumes a relationship between the influences of cognitive processes, the behavior, and
the environment. In this study, the strategies implemented to address sense of belonging during
the pandemic are environmental factors. In turn, environmental factors influence both the
student’s behavior and their personal factors, including sense of belonging. Triadic reciprocity
necessitates that sense of belonging, student behaviors, and the environment continuously exert
determinative influence over one another over time (Bandura, 1978, 1983, 1999). This study
provides a robust understanding of the relationship between the three components of social
cognitive theory in relation to students’ sense of belonging during COVID-19.
Components of the Conceptual Framework
This study examined sense of belonging during the pandemic through the theoretical lens
of social cognitive theory and through the conceptual framework described herein. The three
36

components of social cognitive theory (personal factors, behavior, and environment) were
translated to college students’ sense of belonging (a cognitive process or personal factor), the
strategies and practices of student services staff (the environment), and micro and macro levels
of student behavior (the behavior). For example, a high sense of belonging may influence a
student’s use of academic support services, meeting with a faculty adviser, or the decision to join
a student organization, all of which are known to positively impact retention and persistence and
engaged learning (Astin, 1999; Kuh et al., 2007; Tinto, 1993). As previously described in the
first section of the literature review, sense of belonging itself is shaped by and understood
through various models such as student departure theory (Tinto, 1993), engagement theory (Kuh
et al., 2007), and involvement theory (Astin, 1999). ERT during the pandemic and the general
conditions of distance education were reflected in the environment category as the pandemic
itself provided the impetus for studying sense of belonging within this context and during this
timeframe. The positive outcomes of high sense of belonging and the negative consequences of
an absence of belonging fit into the category of behavior. Peripherally connected to this category
are the overarching goals of higher education. The relationship between the theoretical
framework and the study is illustrated in Figure 1.

37

Figure 1 A Conceptual Framework Illustrating the Interactions Between Social Cognitive
A Conceptual Framework Illustrating the Interactions Between Social Cognitive Theory Within
the Context of COVID-19 and ERT

38

Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate college students’ sense of
belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging
during this time. This literature review presented the extant literature concerning sense of
belonging, including multiple definitions, related theories, outcomes of belonging, and known
strategies for addressing belonging. Alongside this information, ERT (a mode of distance
education teaching in crisis settings) was explored, including early data about the successes and
drawbacks of ERT during COVID-19 and available data about the construct of belonging during
the pandemic.
Taken together, these factors provide a foundation for understanding the implications of
belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic and set the stage for the results of this research study.
Of particular importance is the noted gap in the literature about the role of institutional context
and the specific mechanisms within the institutional environment that affect belonging
(Strayhorn, 2019). This study addressed these gaps, linking institutional context to the pandemic
and a rapid shift to ERT while also examining mechanisms, or strategies and practices, within
the institutional environment. A mixed methods methodology offered the robust data needed to
learn about the strategies and practices staff used to address belonging and understand how
students perceived the pandemic to impact their sense of belonging. The subsequent chapter
addresses the research methodology, the research site, participants and participant recruitment
within each research method, validity and reliability, ethics, and limitations and delimitations.

39

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter 3 provides a foundation for the research methodology for this study. The purpose
of this study was to examine undergraduate college students’ sense of belonging during the
COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging during this time. This
chapter identifies three research questions that guide the study and an overview of the research
design. A summary of the research setting is provided as context. This is followed by a review of
my own reflexivity as a tool to examine my judgments and belief systems that may have
influenced the study. Next, a discussion of the two data sources present in this mixed methods
study are presented, including an overview of participants, instrumentation, and data collection.
Strategies for validity and reliability for each method, ethical considerations for studying human
subjects, and limitations and delimitations are found at the end of this chapter.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now?
2. How do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted
during the pandemic?
3. What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of
belonging during the pandemic?
Overview of Design
This study was conducted using a mixed methods strategy. The mixed methods approach
is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methodology and is achieved by mixing or
integrating the data to utilize the strengths of each approach for a stronger understanding of the
problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The intentional integration of
40

qualitative and quantitative data is the hallmark of mixed methods research because it allows the
researcher to “access knowledge or insights unavailable to a quantitative or qualitative study
undertaken independently” (Moseholm & Fetters, 2017, p. 1).
Specifically, this study utilized a convergent strategy of inquiry. A convergent mixed
methods research strategy is a design in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected at
the same time, reviewed and analyzed separately, and then combined in order to compare the
findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A congruent mixed methods research design allows for a
more complete understanding than a single methods approach could accomplish alone due to the
qualitative exploration of the strategies of student services staff, and a quantitative evaluation of
the student experience and student perceptions of belonging during the pandemic via a sense of
belonging scale.
The quantitative portion of the mixed methods study connected to research question one:
What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now? This research
question was addressed through a quantitative survey instrument. Robinson and Leonard (2019)
point out that a survey is an appropriate data collection tool when capturing attributes, behaviors,
abilities, and thoughts. In this study, I collected information about participants’ behaviors during
the pandemic that relate to belonging and self-perception (e.g., beliefs and feelings) of belonging
during the pandemic.
The qualitative portion of the mixed methods study connected to research questions two
and three: How do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted
during the pandemic? and What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted
students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic? These research questions are addressed
through open-ended survey items with student participants and semi-structured qualitative
41

interviews with student services staff. Patton (2002) states: “The purpose of qualitative
interviewing is to capture how those being interviewed view their world, to learn their
terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and
experiences" (p. 348). Semi-structured interviews allowed participants to share their perceptions
and experiences of what they observed of students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic and
the practices or strategies they used to address belonging. According to Bogdan and Biklen
(2007), semi-structured interviews provide a good opportunity to get comparable data across
several interviews or participants due to the structured nature. In addition, the use of semi-
structured interviews as a methodological tool is in alignment with my selected theoretical
framework, social cognitive theory. In this study, the strategies implemented to address sense of
belonging during the pandemic are environmental factors that influence students’ behavior and
cognitive processes (e.g., sense of belonging; see Chapter 2). Table 1 identifies each research
question and relevant data source.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
RQ 1: What is undergraduate college students’ sense of
belonging right now?
X
RQ2: How do undergraduate college students feel their
sense of belonging was impacted during the pandemic?
X
RQ3: What strategies or practices do students and staff
feel impacted students’ sense of belonging during the
pandemic?
X

42

Research Setting
The research site, Southwest Regional University (SRU), is located in an urban setting in
the southwest region of the United States. SRU is a faith-based university and holds a Hispanic-
serving Institution (HSI) designation. Its reach is global—with campuses in Mexico and France,
as well as online programs. According to Fall 2021 institutional records, 54% of all
undergraduate and graduate students identified as Hispanic, 21% as White, 9% as Black, and 6%
as Asian. Unknown, nonresident alien, and two or more races comprise 10% of the student
population. The institution has 10 schools, including five health profession schools, and one
college. Popular undergraduate programs include psychology, rehabilitative sciences, nursing,
animation and game design, criminal justice, and accounting. In Fall 2021, undergraduate
enrollment was approximately 4,000, not including the school of professional studies, with a
gender composition of 60% female and 40% male. Approximately 25% of undergraduate
students live on campus. Tuition and fees were approximately $30,000 with 98% of first year
students receiving financial assistance. In addition, nearly half of all first-year students were
eligible for the Pell grant. Pell grant recipients are low-income students with “exceptional
financial need” (United States Department of Education, 2020). As of Fall 2021, SRU’s full-time
and part-time workforce on the main campus included 513 faculty and 594 staff.
As previously noted, undergraduate students and student services staff were participants
in this study. Based on SRU’s student profile, student participants were likely to be receiving
financial aid, were likely to identify as an underrepresented race, and may or may not have lived
on campus between March 2020 and Fall 2021. Of all undergraduate students at SRU, student
organization members and officers were targeted to complete the survey. At the time of data
collection, there were 70 active student organizations.
43

Student services at the institution include campus ministry, academic advising, student
athlete support services, campus engagement, counseling and health services, academic learning
support services, military and veterans affairs, sports and wellness, residential life, student
conduct, and more. In total, there are 24 student-facing, student services departments at SRU
with a total of 163 employees. Student services staff participants in the study represented
residential life, student conduct, academic advising, and other related units.
The Researcher
As a constructivist researcher, I acknowledge the many biases and assumptions that shape
my work. My professional role in the higher education field, and specifically student
affairs/student success, shaped how I understand student services staff roles, as well as student
experiences within an institution. I have 12 years of professional experience at a small, private
liberal arts and sciences institution and four years of experience at large, public, Research I
institutions. Given that the institutional profile of the research site (known as Carnegie
Classification) is different from my professional experiences in higher education, a full
understanding of the research site was limited. One way I mitigated this limitation was to gain a
robust understanding of the research site prior to qualitative and quantitative data collection. This
was accomplished by conducting internet research and multiple conversations with my point of
contact at the research site to learn about the campus culture. In addition, this background
research helped me to embed institution-specific language into the qualitative interviews and
quantitative survey. The selection of specific words that reflect the research site is known as
languaculture (Patton, 2002). I also reviewed the interview protocol and draft survey with the
research site point of contact to ensure terminology was reflective of the institutional culture.
44

Another component of my identity, my personal educational experiences, may be present
as a bias. All of my post-secondary education and my professional experiences in higher
education have occurred at predominantly White institutions (PWIs). In addition, as an
individual who identifies as White, my educational experiences have been relatively positive
(i.e., without obstacles). I have almost always felt like a member of the dominant population. As
a researcher with privilege in this space, I addressed this bias by considering the impact of the
institutional type of the research site on participants’ experiences, particularly in combination
with participants’ identities. In the qualitative portion of the study, my notetaking during and
after the semi-structured interviews (also known as observer comments or “O.C.”) included
observations about the ways in which institution type and/or participants’ identities were present
within the data. As suggested by Burkholder et al. (2020), I used brackets within my research
memos to separate personal observations from data-specific observations.
In both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study, my professional background
likely shaped how I analyzed the interview and survey data, understood staff and student
experiences as represented in the data, and engaged in the meaning making process. Within the
qualitative interview data, I addressed this risk by conducting member checking with two of the
nine participants. Member checking, also called respondent validation, is the process of sharing
interview data with the participant to ensure it accurately reflects the interview and their
experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Both individuals articulated that the interview
summary reflected their experiences and what they shared during the interview. Within the
quantitative survey data, data results from the Qualtrics survey platform were used to validate
responses from the open-ended survey questions (and vice versa).
45

A third component of my salient social identities, my gender, reflects an experience of
marginalization. As a White, cisgender female, and an individual whose highest level of
education is a Master’s degree, the majority of my identities reflect privilege in multiple ways. In
contrast, as an individual who identifies as female, I have not always felt that my voice was
heard or valued, particularly in places where male identities are present or dominant, and
particularly when those individuals hold faculty titles. It is possible that my personal experiences
of marginalization may have acted as a form of bias and limited my ability to engage fully with
all participants during interviews. Practicing the interview protocol prior to data collection with a
variety of participants helped me to address this limitation. In addition, as data collection
progressed, my comfort level and familiarity with the protocol and student services staff
increased.
Finally, I am a highly-educated professional within postsecondary education, thus I have
a deep understanding of the culture, systems, language, and the “hidden curriculum” of higher
education. To mitigate my potential proclivity to make assumptions and use jargon within the
qualitative portion of the study, I tested my interview protocol with two individuals in similar
student services staff population. To mitigate possible jargon in the quantitative portion of the
study, I tested the survey instrument with a similar student population. Pretesting the survey
ensured the survey was thorough and the questions were well-written and understood by the
population (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Throughout the survey I defined ‘sense of belonging’
multiple times, as well as provided context to time-bound questions to help participants recall
information and respond to the survey item(s). These strategies are supported in the literature to
help improve the accuracy of responses and to reduce unintended interpretations (Peytchev et al.,
2010; Schober et al., 2004).
46

Data Sources
There were two data sources for this study. Data sources included both a quantitative
sense of belonging survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews in a mixed methods
approach known as a convergent design. Specifically, qualitative and quantitative data were
collected at approximately the same time and data from the two sources were integrated to
illustrate how both forms of data converge and/or diverge (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
method provides a comprehensive analysis of the data and explores contradictions of incongruent
findings.
Method 1: Survey
The first data source was a quantitative survey. The instrument, Appendix A, is an
adoption of an existing sense of belonging scale found in the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
Participants
Participants for the quantitative portion of the study were undergraduate college students
at SRU. Participants were recruited using purposeful sampling, a nonprobability sampling
method. Purposeful sampling is the selection of participants based on specific selection criteria
that results in a target population from which the most can be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Criteria are the attributes or characteristics of the sample that reflect the purpose study (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The target population, undergraduate college
students at SRU, was accessed via student organization leaders, student organization members,
and any peers with whom they may have shared the survey link. To reach the target population,
the recruitment strategy required the collaboration of the research site to identify participants
using institutional data (e.g., student organization rosters) and to send survey materials on my
behalf. In addition, using publicly-available student organization officer information online, I
47

sent emails (using a USC email address) to possible participants. Per the recruitment email, the
student was also invited to set aside time during an organization meeting for all members to
complete the survey (i.e., group administration). No students contacted me with a request to
complete the survey via group administration.
Inclusion criteria for the quantitative student survey portion of the study included five
items. First, participants were at least 18 years of age or older. Second, participants were full-
time, undergraduate students at the research site. Next, participants were enrolled at the research
site during the onset of the pandemic (AY 2019–2020, or minimally, Spring 2020) and during
AY 2020–2021. Finally, due to the timing of data collection, participants were also currently
enrolled at the research site during AY 2021–2022. There was one exclusion criterion for survey
participants. Given that non-U.S. citizens may or may not have resided in the United States
during the pandemic, this population will be excluded from the target population.
Two incentives were provided to survey respondents. Students who took the survey were
provided an option to enter a raffle to win one of five $20 gift cards to a vendor of their choice.
The final survey question linked to a separate Qualtrics survey that asked for contact information
(name, email address) for the gift card raffle. No information from the research survey was
connected to the Qualtrics raffle survey. To conduct the raffle, I assigned a number to all entries
that appeared in the raffle survey and used a random number generator to select five winning
recipients. Raffle winners were notified within one week of closing the survey, and gift cards
were distributed electronically to the recipients. The second incentive was provided specifically
to student organizations for group administration of the survey. While no student organization
participated, the incentive was stated as a $25 gift card to a vendor of their choice to benefit the
student organization.
48

Instrumentation
Sense of belonging scales frequently use general measures to examine students’
subjective sense of psychological belonging. Scales in which participants indicate levels of
agreement with statements are common. Response options reflect Likert scale answers.
I utilized the university level belonging measures subscales from Freeman et al. (2007)
(social acceptance, professors’ pedagogical caring, and university belonging) to measure
students’ sense of belonging at SRU. The full scale from Freeman et al. (2007) includes class
belonging, the McKeachie Scales (instructor warmth and openness, instructor organization,
instructor high expectations, and student participation), and Motivational Scales (MSLQ;
intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and academic self-efficacy). The social acceptance subscale
reflects questions specific to social belonging and fit. The professor caring subscale addresses
academic belonging inside the classroom. The university belonging subscale focuses on a global
sense of belonging to the institution. These subscales reflect the operationalized sense of
belonging definition for this study identified in Chapter 2. Cronbach’s alphas for each subscale
are available in the validity and reliability section of this chapter. All survey items (excluding the
participant criteria and demographic questions) corresponded directly to research questions one
and two (e.g., What is undergraduate students’ current sense of belonging right now? and How
do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted during the
pandemic?) and to the personal factor/cognitive processes component (i.e., sense of belonging)
of Bandura’s (1978, 1983, 1999) social cognitive theory.
The instrument opened with a narrative summary of the study. The summary included the
study purpose, why participation was important, the approximate length of time to complete the
survey, and an electronic link to the information sheet for exempt studies. Next, sense of
49

belonging was defined for the survey participant (and subsequently provided throughout the
instrument on multiple occasions as a reminder). Following these introductory statements, the
survey included several sections, or blocks, of questions. Questions 1–5 confirmed respondent
eligibility for participation (using survey logic, “no” responses directed respondents to an end of
survey statement). Questions 6–10 were belonging questions separate from the Freeman et al.
(2007) subscales. Questions 11–27 were from the social acceptance, professors caring subscale,
and university belonging subscales. Question 28 was a final non-subscale belonging question.
Questions 29–30 asked participants to compare their sense of belonging now to the COVID-19
pandemic (a time period was identified to help reduce respondent’s cognitive load and to address
history as a threat to internal validity). Question 31, an open-ended question, elicited resources or
services participants utilized during the pandemic to support their belonging. A final open-ended
item, question 32, provided the participant an opportunity to share anything else of relevance to
the study purpose. Questions 33–37 completed the survey with sensitive demographic questions
such as race, gender, residency status, and class year. For the racial demographic item, student
participants who identified as Hispanic or Latinx provided this information as a “write-in”
response option.
Data Collection Procedures
Prior to data collection with the target population, the Qualtrics online survey instrument
was pretested with approximately 10 undergraduate students similar to the target population.
Pretesting the survey helped to ensure the questions were well written and understood by the
population (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). During the testing phase, no significant modifications
were made to the instrument; however, two to three errors (e.g., spelling and missing words)
50

were observed and corrected. Survey pretesting occurred in Fall 2021 and data collection
commenced the second week of the Spring 2022 semester at SRU.
Quantitative data collection occurred between January 13, 2022 and February 10, 2022.
Survey materials were sent via email by the research site point of contact on my behalf to
participants in the target population. The email included a compelling invitation to participate in
the survey, the survey purpose, a link to the information sheet for exempt studies, the survey link
and approximate length of time for survey completion (less than eight minutes), and stated
incentives. In addition to the email, the point of contact posted a digital ad with a QR code on a
department-hosted Instagram account frequented by student organizations and student leaders.
The Instagram post was reposted frequently during data collection (at least twice/week) and
included three different digital ads to catch students’ attention. A reminder email was sent to the
target population approximately one week after the initial invitation. The reminder email
included similar language to the original invitation, but was slightly modified for brevity
purposes. Approximately 10 days after the original survey invitation was sent, I also sent
individual and personalized emails to student leader points of contact. Email addresses were
obtained using publicly-available information located on the SRU student organization web
page. Outreach of this nature was sent to approximately 70 students. The final data collection
step occurred at an on-campus event, the Student Organization Fair, on February 7, 2022. A flyer
(i.e., a printed version of the Instagram post) was distributed to participating student
organizations by the research site point of contact. Following this event, one final email reminder
was sent to student organization leaders on February 8. Data collection closed on February 12,
2022. The aforementioned multi-step approach to survey data collection generally reflects the
suggested steps for survey administration in Robinson and Leonard (2019).
51

Data Analysis
Frequencies for quantitative survey data were calculated. For stakeholder groups of fewer
than 20, the percentage of stakeholders who strongly agreed or agreed is presented in relation to
those who strongly disagreed or disagreed. For larger stakeholder groups, means and standards
deviation are presented to identify average levels of responses. Inferential analysis was
conducted to illustrate relationships between demographics and subscales, as well as between the
subscales themselves.
Method 2: Interviews
The second data source was qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured
qualitative interviews with student services staff at SRU served to supplement data provided by
students. In addition, the qualitative interviews provided robust data about the strategies and
practices staff implemented to address belonging during the pandemic. See Appendix B for the
data collection instrument.
Participants
Participants for the qualitative portion of the study, student services staff, were selected
through purposeful and snowball sampling techniques. Purposeful sampling is the process of
selecting participants from whom the most can be learned based on criterion-based selection
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There were three inclusion criteria for this portion of the study: (1)
participants were student services staff who may have observed belonging strategies and/or
implemented one or more belonging strategies aimed at addressing sense of belonging during the
pandemic; (2) student services staff who were employed at a research site that conducted all or
some courses remotely during the pandemic; and (3) student services staff were employed at the
research site for some period of time between Spring 2020 and Spring 2022. These criteria were
52

important because they identified individuals who were present at the research site in a remote
fashion during the pandemic and who were able to speak to or about specific strategies or
practices implemented inside or outside the classroom. Snowball sampling, a form of purposeful
sampling, involves asking participants during an interview to refer other individuals who may
become participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The snowball sampling approach led to the
recruitment of numerous participants.
Participant recruitment included multiple steps. First, the research site point of contact
emailed an invitation to participate in the study to all director-level staff within the student
affairs division at SRU. The email included a compelling invitation to participate in the study,
the study purpose, a link to the information sheet for exempt studies, an approximate length of
time for the interview (45–60 minutes), and the researcher’s name and email address in order to
schedule an interview. In addition to sending the recruitment email, the point of contact made an
announcement at a leadership team meeting to encourage participation and to ask director-level
staff to share the invitation with their respective team members. Within 48 hours of the initial
email, one participant reached out to me with an interest in participating in the interview. From
that point onward, snowball sampling referrals generated an additional eight interviews. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) indicate that snowball sampling is the most common form of purposeful
sampling and allows for the sample to grow bigger as referrals accumulate. One email reminder
was sent to staff by the research point of contact on January 20.
Instrumentation
This portion of the mixed methods study directly connects to research question three
(e.g., What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of
belonging during the pandemic?). The use of semi-structured interviews as a methodological tool
53

was in alignment with my selected theoretical framework, social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1978, 1983, 1999). The strategies implemented to address sense of belonging during the
pandemic are environmental factors that influence “behavior” and the students’ “personal
factors” or cognitive processes (and vice versa) through triadic reciprocity.
My interview protocol consisted of qualitative, semi-structured interviews with student
services staff in a variety of student services units, including academic advising, campus
engagement, counseling and health services, academic learning support services, sports and
wellness, residential life, and student conduct. The interview included several sections consisting
of eight questions. Questions 1–2 were opening questions that introduced the participant to a
sense of belonging definition and asked about participant background information. In the first
part of the interview I developed rapport with the participant by asking about their current role
and what they enjoyed most about their current role. Developing rapport is an important
component of the interview and a good use of the researcher’s time (Bogdan, 2007). Per Patton
(2002), the use of the languaculture of a particular environmental context assists the researcher in
developing rapport. In this instance, my professional role and experience in the higher education
field enabled me to use terminology familiar to the participants I interviewed to make them feel
comfortable and at ease.
The second section of the interview, questions 3–6, focused on belonging during the
pandemic, including examples of belonging strategies the participants observed or implemented.
I utilized two of Patton’s (2002) question types (opinion and experiences/behaviors) to explore
strategies or practices participants observed or personally implemented to address belonging
during the pandemic. Prefatory statements, defined as helpful guides used within the interview
protocol to direct attention to the topic or question (Patton, 2002), were present throughout the
54

interview to give the participant time to gather their thoughts in advance of the question. This
section was iterative in that I repeated questions for each example or strategy provided by the
participant. Question seven focused on the changing landscape of belonging at the institution
since the beginning of the pandemic. For the final question, I asked participants if there was
anything else they would like to share about students’ sense of belonging at SRU.
Data Collection Procedures
This section identifies the logistical procedures for data collection for data source two,
semi-structured qualitative interviews. Given the congruent mixed methods research design,
semi-structured interviews occurred at the same time as the survey administration. The email
invitation to participate in interviews was sent on January 13, 2022 and the final interview took
place on February 8, 2022. Interviews occurred via Zoom, were recorded (with permission from
each participant), and lasted approximately 45–60 minutes. The interviews were in English and
were scheduled according to participant convenience and availability. All participants received
the information sheet for exempt studies via email for their review prior to the interview. In
addition, participants were reminded of the information sheet at the beginning of the interview.
Following completion of each interview, the recording was imported to a third-party
transcription service, Otter.ia (n = 9) or Rev.com (n = 1). Transcription allowed me to capture
rich data present in qualitative interviews, as well as to assist in iterative rounds of coding
analysis. Transcription, including reflections of the transcription as a part of the research process,
is a critical step in the data collection process (Davidson, 2009).
Data Analysis
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Following each interview, I
spent 15 minutes writing a reflection memo. The memo captured my observations about my role
55

in the interview, as well as emerging themes and inclinations for slight modifications to the
interview questions. The reflection memos enabled me to document thoughts, concerns, and
initial ideas about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. Early
on in the interview process, these notes enabled me to see where I needed to modify a specific
question, as well as reorder two items.
Following completion of the interviews, the transcripts were reviewed, cleaned for
accuracy purposes, and then coded. The process of coding in qualitative analysis is equivalent to
interpreting meaning in the data and finding answers to the research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). In the first phase of analysis, open coding was utilized. At this stage, I looked for
empirical codes and applied a priori codes from the sense of belonging definition and literature.
A priori codes are generated prior to applying codes to the text to generate a list of salient ideas
(Gibbs, 2018). Examples of a priori codes in my study included student organizations, remote
learning, and living on campus. In the first review of data, open coding supplemented existing a
priori codes. Open coding reflects the process of coding anything that is relevant in the
qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During open coding, codes that come right from the
data—directly from participants, in their words—reflect in-vivo codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
“Making connections” and “feelings of isolation” were in-vivo codes that emerged directly from
the qualitative data.
In the second phase of analysis, a priori and codes established in the open coding process
were aggregated into analytic, or axial, codes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) clarify that “analytical
coding goes beyond descriptive coding” and begins to interpret the data (p. 206). During the first
and second phases of coding, the technique “constant comparisons” was utilized (Gibbs, 2018).
In practice, this included re-reading coded transcripts to ensure the coding was consistent and
56

done in the same way across participants. At times, statements or sections were un-coded and
then re-coded under a different code to reflect a new or different understanding of the data.
The third phase of data analysis included identification of pattern codes and themes that
emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions and primarily focused on
interpretation of the data within and across participant cases. This is when discrepant data and
points of divergence within the data became clear, particularly when comparing qualitative
student survey data and qualitative staff participant data. In addition, this stage of data analysis
included organizing data in multiple ways in order to see it from multiple analytic angles
(Ravitch & Carl, 2019). One example of this included examining data by related student service
units and by approximate years of experience at the institution.
Validity and Reliability
Issues of validity and reliability for the quantitative survey method and credibility and
trustworthiness for the qualitative semi-structured interview method within this study are
addressed in the subsequent section.
Method 1: Survey
Reliability and content validity are important constructs to consider when using surveys.
Reliability is the ability for an instrument to repeatedly or consistently work with each use, while
content validity looks at whether the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure (i.e.,
the construct or variables one desires to measure; Salkind, 2014). Cronbach’s alpha is a measure
of reliability, or internal consistency (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018)
note that the optimal value range is .70–.90. Table 2 denotes the specific subscales that were
adopted for the survey, the total number of items in each subscale, and the respective Cronbach’s
alpha. My instrument was composed of items adopted from subscales in Freeman et al. (2007).
57

Content validity has been established for these items because they are being adopted from an
existing scale that is well-cited and referenced in the sense of belonging literature.

Table 2 Measures of Belonging from Freeman et al. (2007) Subscale Compared to This Study
Measures of Belonging From Freeman et al. (2007) Subscale Compared to This Study
Subscale Items Cronbach’s 𝞪𝞪 * Cronbach’s 𝞪𝞪 for this study
Social acceptance 5 0.83 0.76
Professors’ pedagogical caring 5 0.75 0.77
University belonging 8 0.79 0.81

Note. Adapted from 2004 pilot study cited in “Sense of Belonging in College Freshmen at the
Classroom and Campus Levels,” by T. M. Freeman, L. H. Anderman, and J. M. Jensen, 2007,
Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203–220. In the public domain.

58

Method 2: Interviews
Credibility and transferability were addressed in the qualitative interviews through
member checking and thick description. Member checks can include soliciting feedback from
participants on preliminary findings to see if the researcher’s interpretation is generally accurate
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the time-bound deadlines of this dissertation process, in
combination with the complexity of a mixed methods research approach, member checking
occurred with two randomly-selected participants to ensure the collected data was accurate and
reflected the participants’ experiences. A summary of the interview along with high-level key
takeaways (i.e., early findings) was shared with two participants. Both participants indicated
agreement with and support of the documentation. The second strategy, thick description,
addresses transferability within the sample and the research site by providing a robust dataset for
others to make inferences and informed decisions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, thick
description appears in the data through the inclusion of participant details in Chapter 4.
Similarly, the aforementioned description of the research site is another example of thick
description. The goal with thick description is to provide sufficient details to make transferability
possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, triangulation as a strategy for internal validity links together the aforementioned
quantitative and qualitative portions of this mixed methods study. In this instance, triangulation
is an approach in which multiple and complementary research methods are used to examine a
research question to ensure the data is believable and accurate (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
quantitative research method includes the use of a scale of belonging administered to a sample of
undergraduate college students as a way to complement the data obtained from semi-structured
interviews with student services staff. In this way, one data set is used to validate the other.
59

Ethics
Underlying Ethics
Building from a constructivist philosophical paradigm, this study utilized a mixed
methods approach to make sense of the world through multiple lenses (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Researcher paradigms, or a researcher’s orientation, are important to explicitly articulate
in order to identify underlying beliefs and salient factors that influence what should be studied,
how it should be studied, and how the results are interpreted (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). In this
instance, the multiple lenses include perceptions and experiences of students and student services
staff. This approach is intended to value and highlight multiple voices and a “complexity of
views rather than narrowing meanings” to only that of the faculty and staff or students (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018, p. 8). In this study, knowledge was generated from two sources: student
services staff as I inquired about strategies to address sense of belonging and student voices who
self-perceived their belonging during the pandemic and identified campus resources and
practices they utilized that supported their belonging. From an ontological lens, human existence
in this study is perceived as a social relationship between student services staff and students.
However, the agency and responsibility to shape the ontological relationship is conceived and
held by staff. Thus, the study is framed to engage staff at the epicenter of power to achieve
change while learning from students affected by institutional and individual belonging practices.
This ensures change efforts are centered on leaders and employees, as opposed to students whose
sense of belonging (a personal factor of the individual) and behavior is influenced by the
environment (belonging strategies).
Axiology, in the form of ethical conduct, is another concept to consider within this study.
Teleology, a theory of morality, underscores the use of research results in meaningful ways and
60

to serve as many people as possible (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Students are the primary
benefactors of this study. Relatedly, HEIs are in a position to serve and center this population
from an equity-minded lens. When it comes to the distribution of findings, ethics are present,
too. Findings are intended to benefit participants, the research community, and the public
(Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Scheffler (1982, as cited in Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017) references this
form of ethical conduct as a deontological understanding in which every action in the research
results in a consequence. Thus, in order to support the work of higher education leaders, findings
will be shared with the participating institution as an executive summary. Findings will also be
submitted as a research article(s) in relevant newsletters or journals that guide student
development and higher education practice.
Rationale for Institutional Review Board (IRB)
IRB approval was first obtained by the University of Southern California and then by
SRU, the research site. The IRB process commenced in October 2021 and concluded in January
2022. A double-IRB process is common in higher education and ensures clearance from the
researcher’s home institution, as well as support and approval from the research site. For some
participants, multiple review and approval steps provide assurance about their participation in the
study and credibility for the researcher.
My responsibilities with respect to involving human participants in my study included
protecting participants’ confidentiality and the data itself (e.g., ethical and safe data collection
and data storage), reducing potential emotional or psychological harm to participants during data
collection, and analyzing data with integrity in such a manner that it accurately reflects
participants’ experiences. Several precautions were used to address IRB needs and common
ethical standards of research within my study. The individuals studied were willing participants,
61

not coerced or manipulated into participation. The term ‘participants’ is specifically selected to
address that all individuals who participate were willing and collaborative participants (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative interview participants were identified by the research site point of
contact using purposeful sampling and the aforementioned criteria. Assurances were provided to
participants via email that participation was not required and responses were confidential.
Quantitative survey participants were identified in collaboration with the research site point of
contact. Student participation was encouraged, but not required, via an initial email sent on my
behalf (including two reminder emails and notices via social media).
An information sheet for exempt studies was shared with all participants. This USC-
sponsored form includes identification of the researcher, purpose of the study, benefits for
participating, the level and type of participant involvement, risks to the participant, a guarantee
of confidentiality, assurance that the participant can withdraw from the study at any time,
information about data storage, and contact information if questions arise (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The sheet was sent via email to student services staff who expressed voluntary interest in
participating in the qualitative semi-structured interviews. Participants were also reminded of the
document and its major components at the beginning of the interview. In the quantitative portion
of the study, the information sheet was referenced in the body of the recruitment email, as well
as within the introduction of the survey in the Qualtrics platform.
Risks to the participants in this study were limited. In the qualitative portion of the study,
the interview protocol explicitly articulated the role of the researcher—underscoring a non-
evaluative role and the goal of understanding participants’ experiences. That said, it is possible
the participant perceived my role as someone who expects specific responses (i.e., right answers)
due to the fact that I am inquiring about their professional work. To mitigate this risk, the
62

interview protocol begins with a question designed to build rapport and trust. In the quantitative
portion of the study, risks to student participants potentially included emotional distress in the
event that recalling belonging during the pandemic is difficult or painful.

63

Chapter Four: Findings
This study analyzed undergraduate students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic and
strategies employed by student services staff to address belonging during this time. The study
was grounded with a conceptual framework based on Bandura’s (1978, 1983, 1999) social
cognitive theory. This chapter focuses on the mixed methods research study conducted at
Southwest Regional University (SRU), including a participant overview and findings organized
by the following three research questions:
1. What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now?
2. How do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted
during the pandemic?
3. What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of
belonging during the pandemic?
Participants
This section provides specific participant characteristics as they emerged from the data
collection in order to provide context to the findings. General sample population characteristics
are described in Chapter 3, while demographic details about participants are included in this
section within Chapter 4. Participants in this mixed methods study included undergraduate
students at SRU, via a quantitative survey, and student services staff at SRU, via semi-structured
qualitative interviews.
Student Survey Respondents
Survey participants were undergraduate students at SRU. Descriptive statistics reveal
several findings about the survey participants. A total of 57 respondents completed three
demographic questions at the end of the survey. The majority of respondents identified as female
64

(n = 47 or 81%). This reflects an overrepresentation of this demographic within the study
compared to the overall undergraduate female student enrollment at SRU of 60%. In addition,
78% of respondents were juniors or seniors in terms of class standing. This finding aligns with
the survey inclusion criteria. That said, one respondent identified as a first-year student and a
small number of respondents identified as sophomore students. Three possibilities exist:
1. The respondents did not respond truthfully to the eligibility questions at the beginning
of the survey.
2. The respondents did not understand the eligibility questions at the beginning of the
survey and completed it anyway.
3. The respondents may hold first year or sophomore class standing due to a low number
of completed credit hours, but may have been enrolled at SRU for multiple years.
For criteria and eligibility purposes, all data connected to the respondent who identified
as a first-year student was removed from the data set. Table 3 illustrates these findings.

65

Table 3 Survey Respondent Demographic Information by Class Standing and Gender
Survey Respondent Demographic Information by Class Standing and Gender
Class
standing
Gender
Male Female Non-
binary/third
gender
Write-in
response
Total %
Sophomore 4 10 0 0 14 24.6%
Junior 1 11 0 0 12 21.0%
Senior 3 24 2 1 30 52.6%
Write-in
response
0 1 0 0 1 1.8%
Total 8 46 2 1 57
% 14.0% 80.7% 3.5% 1.8%

In relation to respondents’ racial demographics, 70.2% identified as White, and the next
largest racial demographic was Hispanic (14.0%). Compared to SRU’s enrollment, White
respondents are overrepresented in the study, while Hispanic respondents are underrepresented.
Implications for over- and under-representation of various demographic variables include the
possibility of missing perspectives, particularly from Hispanic respondents at an HSI, as well as
challenges for study transferability. This limitation is also addressed in Chapter 5. Table 4
provides a summary of the racial demographic of survey respondents.

66

Table 4 Racial Demographics of Survey Respondents
Racial Demographics of Survey Respondents
Race N %
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 1.7%
Asian, including Indian subcontinent 3 5.3%
Black or African American 5 8.8%
Hispanic 8 14.0%
White 40 70.2%

Note. All write-in responses were Hispanic (n = 8).

Interview Participants
Interview participants were student services staff at SRU. A total of nine interviews were
conducted. Participants included six females and three males, representing eight different
departments at SRU. The participants’ role types aggregate to three main student services
categories: academic in nature (n = 2), wellness (n = 3), and life outside the classroom (n = 4).
Academic in nature roles may include academic advising, academic support services, and similar
units. Life outside the classroom roles include student activities, residential life, and similar
units. Wellness roles may include counseling services, health services, and similar units. A
second participant characteristic, years of experience at SRU, is relevant to the findings.
Participants’ years of experience at the institution ranged from zero to two years (n = 2) all the
way to 12+ years (n = 3). Due to the combination of the small size of the institution, the limited
67

number of departments, and the small number of employees in each department, disaggregated
participant details are not provided to protect interview participant anonymity. The following
pseudonyms were used in the study to represent nine interview participants: Charlotte, Cole,
Maria, Elena, Stella, Raphael, Luke, Clary, and Abby.
Findings
Research Question 1: What Is Undergraduate Students’ Current Sense of Belonging Right
Now?
Responses to the three belonging subscales from Freeman et al. (2007) provide context to
respondents’ current sense of belonging. Between 62 and 63 respondents completed survey items
composed of the three subscales: social acceptance, professor caring, and university belonging.
Not surprisingly, more students responded to the subscale questions at the beginning of the
survey compared to the demographic questions at the end of the survey (n = 57). Response
options included a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Regarding social acceptance, the majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the
statements about belonging and fit (i.e., perceptions that their peers and others in the community
accept them as they are). The average for social acceptance was 4.4 (SD = 0.6). Regarding
professor caring, the majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statements about
professors caring about their overall educational experiences. The average for the professors’
caring subscale was 4.4 (SD = 0.7). Regarding university belonging, the majority of respondents
strongly agreed or agreed with statements that reflect a global sense of belonging to the
institution. The average for the university belonging subscale was 3.8 (SD = 0.8). Overall, these
findings suggest that across all three subscales, students expressed high levels of agreement of
belonging socially, academically, and institutionally (see Table 5).
68

Cronbach’s alpha is a statistical measure for internal consistency. The original subscales
achieved high levels of Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 2). In this study, the results for Cronbach’s
alpha reflect the similar levels of internal consistency compared to the Freeman et al. (2007)
study. Cronbach’s alpha for the professor caring and university belonging subscales was higher
in this study compared to the original study, while Cronbach’s alpha for the social acceptance
subscale (0.76) in the present study was lower than the original study (0.83). Table 5 provides a
summary of the descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales for this study.

Table 5 Summary of Scales for this Study
Summary of Scales for This Study
Subscale n M SD Cronbach's α for this
study
Social acceptance 63 4.4 0.6 0.76
Professors’
pedagogical
caring
62 4.2 0.7 0.77
University
belonging
62 3.8 0.8 0.81

69

Non-Scale Belonging Items
In addition to the previously-mentioned three belonging subscales from Freeman et al.
(2007), an additional six stand-alone belonging items were included in the survey instrument.
Table 6 identifies these items, the relevant descriptive statistics, and their origin or source.
Overall, respondents indicated a high level of agreement (as illustrated by strongly agree and
agree responses) with the Likert-scale statements and responses clustered around the mean (as
illustrated by low standard deviations across the items responses).

70

Table 6 Summary of Additional Sense of Belonging Items with Original Sources
Summary of Additional Sense of Belonging Items With Original Sources

Item n M SD Source Description
I feel a sense of
belonging to
SRU.
68 4.2 0.93

Bollen and
Hoyle (1990)
This six-question scale
measures belonging and
morale (known as the
“Perceived Cohesion
Scale”). Only the belonging
items were included.
I feel that I am a
member of the
SRU
community.
68 4.3 0.82

I see myself as a
part of the SRU
community.
68 4.2

0.82

SRU is supportive
of me.
68 4.2

0.98 Johnson et al.
(2007)
The scale used by Johnson et
al. (2007) was used to study
belonging of first-year
students of different racial
groups. Johnson et al. (2007)
note that the items are
consistent with a scale used
by Hurtado and Carter
(1997).
I would choose
the same
college again.
62 4.3

0.90
I feel valued as a
person at SRU.
68 4.2 0.98 O’Meara et al.
(2017)
This scale was originally
designed for an exploratory,
quantitative study of
graduate students and factors
that shape belonging. Items
in this scale were adapted
from other works by
O’Meara and colleagues.

While Table 6 identifies descriptive statistics about each of the non-subscale items across
Bollen and Hoyle (1990), Johnson et al. (2007), and O’Meara et al. (2017), the next three figures
provide a visualization of Likert scale responses. The figures are grouped by source as identified
71

in Table 6. As illustrated in Figure 2, the majority of students selected strongly agree or agree in
response to the three Bollen and Hoyle (1990) items: “I feel a sense of belonging to SRU,” “I
feel that I am a member of the SRU community,” and “I see myself as a part of the SRU
community.” As illustrated in Figure 3, the majority of students selected strongly agree or agree
in response to the two Johnson et al. (2007) items: “SRU is supportive of me” and “I would
choose the same college again.” As illustrated in Figure 4, the majority of students selected
strongly agree or agree in response to the single O’Meara et al. (2017) item: “I feel valued as a
person at SRU.”

72

Figure 2 Likert Scale Responses to Bollen and Hoyle (1990) Sense of Belonging Items
Likert Scale Responses to Bollen and Hoyle (1990) Sense of Belonging Items

Figure 3 Likert Scale Responses to Johnson et al. (2007) Sense of Belonging Items
Likert Scale Responses to Johnson et al. (2007) Sense of Belonging Items

73

Figure 4 Likert Scale Responses to O’Meara et al. (2017) Sense of Belonging Items
Likert Scale Responses to O’Meara et al. (2017) Sense of Belonging Items

Correlations Between the Subscales and Demographic V ariables
Inferential statistics can be used to measure relationships between the scales or between
variables. In a correlation, the value of r is interpreted as the effect size, or the strength of the
relationship, with results <0.4 interpreted as weak, 0.4–0.6 as moderate, and >0.6 as strong
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). Three correlations between the subscales were explored: social
acceptance and professor caring, professor caring and university belonging, and university
belonging and social acceptance. Table 7 presents a summary of the descriptive and inferential
statistics for the subscales and other study variables.
The correlation between subscales is important to explore to verify or exclude
interactions or relationships between each of the subscales. Pearson’s r was computed to assess
the relationship between the social acceptance scale and university belonging scale. There was a
74

significant correlation between the two variables (r = .702; n = 62; p<.00001). A significant
relationship of this nature indicates a positive, linear relationship between the social acceptance
scale and university belonging scale; as one goes up, so does the other. Pearson’s r was
computed to assess the relationship between the professor caring scale and the university
belonging scale. There was a significant positive correlation between professor caring and
university belonging (r = .714; n = 60; p<.00001). Pearson’s r was computed to assess the
relationship between the social acceptance scale and the professor caring scale. There was a
moderately positive correlation between the social acceptance scale and the professor caring
scale (r = .545; n = 60; p<.00001). Table 7 summarizes the correlations for all study variables,
including the subscales.

75

Table 7 Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Variable n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Race 57 – – –
2. Class year 57 – – 0.247 –
3. Gender 57 – – 0.210 0.187 –
4. Student
organization
leadership role 57 – – 0.217 0.226 0.141 –
5. Social
acceptance
subscale 63 4.4 0.6 0.232 0.350 0.238 0.179 –
6. Professors’
pedagogical
caring subscale 62 4.2 0.7 0.228 0.359 0.251 0.328 0.545* –
7. University
belonging
subscale 62 3.8 0.8 0.285 0.242 0.183 0.248 0.702* 0.714* –

*p < .00001.

Correlations between the three belonging subscales and demographic variables such as
race, class year, gender, and student organization role were insignificant. There was also not a
significant relationship between the demographic variables themselves. There was not a
statistically significant relationship between race and any of the three belonging subscales. In
76

addition, there was not a statistically significant relationship between class year and any of the
three belonging subscales. There was not a statistically significant relationship between gender
and any of the three belonging subscales. Finally, there was not a statistically significant
relationship between holding a leadership position in a student organization and any of the three
belonging subscales. Table 7 provides correlations for all study variables.
In summary, and in relation to research question one, respondents had relatively high
levels of belonging at the time of survey completion. Descriptive and inferential statistics support
this finding. Strong positive correlations between each of the respective subscales indicate that
when respondents experienced high belonging levels on one subscale, they also experienced high
belonging levels on the other subscales. Significantly positive correlations between the subscales
are illustrated in Table 7, while descriptive statistics for the subscales are illustrated in Table 5.
Research Question 2: How Do Undergraduate Students Feel Their Sense of Belonging Was
Impacted During the Pandemic?
Students responded to three questions within a quantitative survey that addressed this
research question. Two of the three items were open-ended questions and one item was a
question with Likert scale response options. Responses to these specific questions were used to
answer this research question.
Quantitative Responses to Changes in Belonging During the Pandemic
In response to the question “Compared to now, was your sense of belonging during the
pandemic: much better, somewhat better, stayed the same, somewhat worse, much worse,”
findings were distributed unequally across all response options. Specifically, 43.7% of
participants reported their belonging was somewhat worse or much worse during the pandemic
compared to now, while 25% of participants indicated their belonging stayed the same and
77

31.7% of participants indicated their belonging was better or much better during the pandemic
than it is now. Figure 5 depicts the varied response distribution to this question. Participant
responses to the open-ended items, described next, underscore this variable participant
experience.

Figure 5 Responses Regarding Belonging During the Pandemic Compared to Now
Responses Regarding Belonging During the Pandemic Compared to Now

78

Qualitative Responses to Changes in Belonging During the Pandemic
Two open-ended items, “How was your sense of belonging different during the
pandemic?” (n = 38) and “Is there anything else you’d like to add?” (n = 18), provided
qualitative data that support the inconsistent findings of the aforementioned item. Similar to the
coding process identified in Chapter 3, opening coding was utilized in the first phase of analysis.
In the second phase of analysis, codes were aggregated into analytic, or axial, codes. The third
phase of data analysis included identification of patterns and themes.
Participant responses ranged from phrases and incomplete sentences to multiple sentence
responses. These themes included: an absence of belonging; the difficult nature of forming
friendships and connections with others; feeling isolated or being alone; longing for face-to-face
engagement; and mental health challenges. Each of these themes is subsequently described and
explained through the words and voices of student participants.
Some respondents articulated an absence of belonging, both explicitly and implicitly.
Respondents used phrases such as, “I felt a strong lack of belonging during the pandemic,” and
“No group from [SRU] made me feel at home. No organization or events” and “During the
pandemic, specifically lockdown, I felt as if I didn’t belong.” One response, in particular, made
explicit the relationship between community, connections, and belonging: “It’s so much harder
to feel like you belong in a community when you don’t actually know anyone and have no
connections to make you feel like you belong there.”
The topic most frequently referenced by students was difficulty making friends and
connections with others. For example, one respondent stated: “It was hard to meet anyone while
in online classes.” Similarly, another respondent shared: “Everyone had to be distanced so it’s
very difficult to make new friends.” One respondent connected active participation on campus or
79

in campus life with difficulty making friends: “being unable to actively participate and create
meaningful friendships was extremely difficult.” An example of an indirect reference to this
theme surfaced in responses such as “I didn’t really have much to do with the school when I was
away.”
Students also articulated a feeling of isolation, a term specifically used by respondents,
and being alone. One participant shared an example of “before” and “after” the pandemic:
I really felt like once the pandemic ended I was able to settle into my own skin. I didn’t
have that many friends before, I was surrounded by people who didn’t care about their
future or me. I remember having to sit by myself or with random people because I
couldn’t fit in. I would ask to sit with others and they would completely ignore me,
regardless of if I introduced myself.
The experience of being isolated and alone was also true for one respondent who moved outside
the United States in response to the campus closure. This respondent indicated they returned to
their home country as a result of the switch to remote learning and closing (or de-densifying)
residence halls: “During the pandemic I was studying completely online and in my home country
so I felt totally like an outsider.”
Students articulated a longing for face-to-face interactions during the pandemic. As one
student noted: “Everything is better in person.” The desire for in-person interactions and
engagement was expressed as formal and informal interactions. For example, a respondent
shared a want for the routine experience of “encountering people in the cafeteria or the
recreational areas.” Put simply, a student stated: “Students want to be on campus and we want to
be a part of a community where making friends and participating is encouraged and easy.” This
80

theme aligns with the aforementioned themes of students feeling lonely, isolated, and unable to
make friends.
Mental health impacted students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic. Students
articulated general concern about their mental health while other students expressed that their
mental health was a barrier to their sense of belonging. For example, on several occasions
respondents expressed worries about “giving up” and “dropping out.” One student shared: “My
sense of belonging was different due to the fact that not only the pandemic but quarantine
affecting [sic] my mental health. [It was] much more difficult to find the motivation for every
day [sic] things even for school.” Another respondent explains how their mental health changed
as the pandemic changed: “During the beginning of the Spring semester of 2021 I was having
mental health problems and eventually utilized counseling. I slowly started having a few more
in-person classes which vastly improved my mental health and sense of belonging.”
Cross-referencing data from research question one, the current state of students’ sense of
belonging, with qualitative data about how students’ belonging was impacted is revealing. Not
surprisingly, the 27 student respondents who indicated their sense of belonging was “much
worse” or “somewhat worse” during the pandemic compared to now articulated more negative
sentiments about belonging, isolation, absence of friendships, and mental health. Those who
selected “somewhat worse” (n = 18) were more likely to provide specific responses to the
services or programs they utilized to support or enhance their belonging compared to those who
selected “much worse” (n = 9). Not a single respondent who indicated their sense of belonging
“stayed the same” (n = 15) responded to the question item “How was your sense of belonging
different during the pandemic?;” however, nine of the 15 respondents provided specific
examples of services or programs they utilized. Respondents who indicated their sense of
81

belonging was “somewhat better” (n = 10) or “much better” (n = 9) frequently identified services
or programs they utilized to support or enhance their sense of belonging.
In summary, there were five themes that were derived from the student survey and
answered the research question “How do undergraduate students feel their sense of belonging
was impacted during the pandemic?” The five themes were: an absence of belonging; the
difficult nature of forming friendships and connections with others; feeling isolated or being
alone; longing for face-to-face engagement; and mental health challenges. These themes reflect
students’ feelings, beliefs, and thoughts, and in some cases, how those personal factors ebbed
and flowed during the pandemic.
Research Question 3: What Strategies or Practices Do Students and Staff Feel Impacted
Students’ Sense of Belonging During the Pandemic?
Research question three is organized by staff and student responses. Their respective
responses are contained within the next section of Chapter 4. When relevant, connections are
made between student and staff responses.
Belonging Strategies and Practices Identified by Staff
Interviews with student services staff revealed themes related to strategies and practices
used to address belonging during the pandemic. The overarching theme for all strategies was the
concept “making connections with students.” Employees operationalized making connections
with students in three distinct ways: providing resource referrals; hosting or facilitating
programming of various kinds; and supporting paid and unpaid student employment
opportunities. Figure 6 depicts the aforementioned themes and their relationship to one another.
These themes will be explored in the subsequent sections.

82

Figure 6 Summary of Strategies and Practices Identified by Staff
Summary of Strategies and Practices Identified by Staff

Making Connections with Students. Making connections with students as a belonging
strategy took a variety of shapes and forms. For example, staff participants described this
strategy as 1:1 check-ins with students, formal interventions (i.e., peer-to-peer mentoring or
resident assistant, also known as an RA, check-ins), and social and educational programming as
ways in which they made connections to, with, and for students. Efforts dedicated to making
connections occurred both remotely (i.e., Zoom or a form of digital communication, like social
media) and in-person, when permitted by institutional health protocols. For participant Cole,
making connections included checking in on “social justice stuff going on, if there’s stuff at
home, if they’re navigating classes, if it’s tough for them to get internet.” Nearly all staff
participants acknowledged making connections with students about myriad topics, both inside
and outside the classroom. Another participant, Abby, described making connections with
students as throwing them a “life raft” while students are drifting at sea. Similarly, Luke
explained the importance of making in-person connections with students as being able to “help
them gain a sense of connection … at least seeing people rather than just being stuck wherever
83

they were.” The following sections provide more detail about how participants referenced
making connections with students as a belonging strategy.
Providing Resource Referral. Staff frequently spoke about making connections with
students through resource referrals. The creation of, sharing of, making connections to, and easy
access to resources resonated among participants. Some participants articulated that sharing
information about resources was a work responsibility or personal obligation. For example, Clary
shared: “They’re going to come to us and ask us. Their parents aren’t going to know, so we need
to keep that line of communication open.” Elena interpreted her role in a similar fashion: “So, I
tried to be an advocate … a hub for [students] to go to to [sic] make sure they’re getting all the
resources.”
One type of resource in particular, mental health resources, was referenced frequently in
relation to making connections with students. This finding is similar to the earlier theme
identified by students about mental health as a barrier to belonging. As staff participants were
making connections with students, they noted their declining mental health and subsequently
shared mental health resources with students. They also prioritized students’ mental health. For
example, Luke perceived that greater campus awareness of mental health during the pandemic
helped to prioritize student needs:
So, I think that just that awareness, and that sense of urgency has really helped us to grow
the resources that we need to help students feel more connected, and know that their
mental health is a priority for everyone at the university.
Many staff participants associated access to mental health resources with student success and
belonging. For example, Cole stated: “[When] students have the access to the things they need
mentally, like, they feel better, and they’re happier.” Raphael talked about mental health referrals
84

when speaking to students: “So, hey, if you need someone to talk to, here’s how you find these
people, how do you get connected, you know working with counseling services.” Raphael also
provided an example of a conversation with a student in which they had to dig deeper to
determine how they were “really doing:”
You know, okay, well, how are you doing? Like, and I’ve had students who are like,
Yeah, I’m fine. And then I keep following up with that, and they’re finally like, they
finally are just like, No, I’m not. Like, I’m not fine.
Hosting or Facilitating Programming. Programming was a form of making connections
with students referenced by nearly all participants in the wellness and life outside the classroom
roles. Programming was mentioned by all staff participants except participants in the academic in
nature roles. Various types of programming were utilized in order to reach students at different
points during the pandemic, per health protocols. When in-person activity was prohibited,
programming included workshops or events via Zoom (e.g., virtual tutoring or counseling) and
social media contests (e.g., scavenger hunts). Service events, such as letter writing or collection
of donated items, were also identified by two participants as remote programming or activities.
Elena noted that although the service events could not be in person, the institutional emphasis on
serving others was something students strongly desired:
And on our campus, we put so much of a focus on service and making a difference, that it
was important for them to still do that. So, we did like virtual classroom visits, we did a
lot of different drives for, for the homeless kids ….
Once in-person activity was permitted by the institution, outdoor carnival-style events and “grab
n’ go events” provided the opportunity for residential students, and commuter students willing or
able to travel to campus, to engage face-to-face. About a grab n’ go event, Luke shared: “they
85

had to go to a certain amount of tables to get resources before they could get their tacos … but
we made it fun via music, we had games, and we had food.” Athletic or recreational activities
were common types of outdoor programming. The frequency and variety of events aligns with
the wide range of programming noted by students and described later in this chapter.
References to programming frequently included mention of health protocols.
Specifically, participants highlighted the dynamic and myriad health protocols as the COVID-19
pandemic evolved: mask enforcement, physical distancing, cleaning surfaces, facility ingress and
egress, contact tracing, limited facility capacities, testing and notification, quarantine and
isolation, and more. Notably, participants in academic in nature roles were least likely to
reference health protocols. Given that many academic functions, including classes, office hours,
and tutoring, immediately shifted to remote options, this may reflect a lower degree of impact in
this type of work. In contrast, planning and hosting events, in-person and virtual, required
significant effort amidst these ongoing changes. Charlotte shared an illustrative example of the
burden of programming coupled with health protocols and health concerns:
Alright, so let’s flip around [the] clean the tables again, there was [sic] a lot of things that
we had to do and implement in order to make sure that we continue giving experience to
students. And at the same time … they have fun and they’re having a great time, then it
[turns] to let’s clean tables, hey, can you put your mask back on, your mask is kind of
lower, can you lift it back up [?].
Participants also shared a variety of risk mitigations related to health protocols. This
included rearranging furniture in order to accommodate tutoring services while physically-
distant, installing plexiglass in offices to enable 1:1 student and staff meetings, sanitizing “pick-
up” stations between participants for grab n’ go giveaway events, and hosting programming in
86

unique outdoor settings. Several participants expressed emotions such as concern and frustration
with keeping up with evolving health protocols, as well as the differing expectations of protocols
between units. Clary shared an example of the changing conditions: “Okay you can have a
program, but it’s 25 people max … then we were told, okay, you can have 50 people at events.”
Maria shared challenges with advance planning: “Once COVID happened, it was really difficult
to plan an entire semester. So, sometimes it would be week to week because we have to change
events or numbers would change and our protocols would change.”
Paid and Unpaid Student Employment Opportunities. Paid and unpaid forms of student
employment were mentioned by at least three interview participants. Student availability and
interest in student employment varied during the pandemic according to Maria. Similarly, the
ability for the institution to provide remote employment opportunities varied. Although variable
in terms of supply and demand during the pandemic, the student employee experience played a
key role in belonging at SRU according to participants.
Paid forms of employment included RAs, peer tutors, and student employees in the
athletic facilities. Within residential life, RAs were expected to physically see and make a
connection with each resident at least once every two weeks. Stella shared that for the RA role
“their specialty is more of that intervention outreach.” In addition, RAs were asked to complete a
weekly form to identify each resident they saw on campus. Due to the fact that students were
taking classes remotely and could effectively fly under the radar for long periods of time without
physical contact with others, Stella noted that the RAs were “like a military, they’re like our, our
squadron leaders” with on-the-ground, current information about student wellbeing.
Outside of residential life, paid student roles were perceived to play a role in shaping
belonging. Maria, who hires a large number of student employees, explained the importance of
87

student employees in “making people feel welcome.” Abby noted how an international student
employee longed to work in the office, inferring from conversations and student behaviors that
“it helps with making a bit of money, but it really helps with [the international student] feeling
connected to the university.” The same participant explained the link between employment and
belonging:
I really feel like the, I think that, for the [employees] themselves, that it probably helped
their sense of belonging. I don’t want to speak for them, but I know that they, especially
when we’re there in person, form pretty tight bonds.
There were also challenges related to paid student employment. Maria shared there was low
student interest and availability to work during times of remote learning. In addition, some
student employment roles were not feasible during this time.
Peer-to-peer mentoring is an example of an unpaid form of student employment. One
participant noted two peer-to-peer mentoring programs that were established during the
pandemic. One initiative focused on student mental health and another focused on helping first
year students transition to college. In both instances, peer mentors participated in lengthy
training programs prior to meeting with mentees. Maria contributed the following:
The only people they saw every day was each other. So, a peer mentor group seemed like
the best opportunity to make sure [students] were talking to each other about, you know,
being okay. So, we trained [students], we partnered with counseling services, to have an
elaborate training, to provide them with the knowledge behind mental health.
This mental health peer mentoring program, in particular, maps directly to the earlier theme of
mental health resource referral. Notably, the shared theme among the paid and unpaid forms of
student employment was providing or ensuring opportunities for peer-to-peer interactions.
88

Approaches to How Staff Implemented Strategies. Throughout the data collection
process, staff noted several techniques or approaches that shaped how they implemented
strategies to address belonging. These approaches included: collaborating with other units and
departments to leverage finite resources; utilizing technology to creatively communicate with
students; and navigating new or additional work responsibilities amidst the pandemic.
Collaborating With Other Units and Departments. As Maria simply stated: “We
collaborated a lot.” Whether due to a need for person-power, additional financial resources, or
subject-matter expertise, collaboration was a critical component of resource-sharing, supporting
students, and implementing belonging strategies. In other words, given no single unit was
prepared to operate in a pandemic environment, participants indicated collaboration made the
execution of belonging strategies possible. In one instance, collaboration with faculty supported
student success strategies. Abby observed: “There’s always [been] a challenge getting students to
use tutoring services. During the pandemic, it has been harder, we’ve been able to, mostly
through really connecting with faculty.” Abby went on to explain that their team conducted
outreach and communication to faculty to encourage referrals to tutoring for students in need.
Charlotte shared the necessity of collaboration in event planning: “And it was hard because you
didn’t really have the human resources in place or the financial resources in place. That’s why
the collaboration, we had to put our heads together and say, we got to make it happen.” Clary
and Stella provided examples of what collaboration entailed and specific partners that were
involved in collaborative efforts. For example, she partnered with “SGA, we had international
student services, and teamed up with [a] living learning community.” Clary shared that while
their department may have hosted an initiative, another department helped to market it to
students through social media, hanging door tags in residential buildings, and handing out flyers.
89

Clary explained how residential life assisted with marketing: “They would help us promote in
their residence halls before the event … they’re putting it on social media or hanging tags on the
door, handing out flyers.” For Elena, collaboration occurred through information-sharing when
developing content for peer mentoring programs. Collaboration was about more than the final
product for Luke. He noted: “I think we’ve seen the campus come together more as a whole, and
really support each other more, instead of everyone kind of being in their own individual silos or
departments.”
Technology As a Tool to Communicate and Connect. Making connections with students
during a pandemic required utilizing a form of communication. The use of technology, and
specifically social media, to connect with students surfaced as a theme that spanned all three
belonging strategies identified by staff. As Elena noted:
Um, I think COVID awkwardly showed us how to communicate easier. Because now a
lot of us don’t have to leave our room to go meet with [a student], I can just hop on a
Zoom with her … it has shown us how to be a lot more tech savvy.
Multiple forms of technology were referenced, including Zoom, social media (e.g., Instagram,
Tik Tok), email, and Blackboard, a web-based learning management system. Zoom fatigue, a
new term that reflects a feeling of exhaustion after using the platform for long periods of time,
also presented in the interviews. Despite Zoom fatigue, Cole mentioned that students “still did
like study hours through Zoom.” Of the multiple forms of technology present, social media was
the most frequently-referenced mode of communication. Charlotte recalled a common phrase in
the student affairs field: “meet students where they are at.” She noted, “they’re not in email.
They’re not on Facebook … they’re on Tik Tok.” Charlotte went on to share that younger
graduate assistants in the office were provided the responsibility of running social media to
90

ensure alignment with college student preferences and behaviors. Clary observed the nature of
social media communication to be affirming and positive as a way to encourage belonging as a
member of the SRU community from a distance. Email, while referenced as a form of personal
or university communication by four participants, was not discussed as a preferred or effective
way to reach students.
Navigating Additional Work Responsibilities. Just as the use of technology by staff
evolved during the pandemic, new expectations surfaced for many of the participants. In some
instances, supervisory changes or organizational structures shaped the landscape and subsequent
expectations. For example, Clary described that while “flexibility and being accommodating of
whatever the situation we’re in” is necessary, institutional expectations were high and human and
financial resources were limited. Some participants also experienced pressure to be on campus
and host in-person events as a belonging and retention strategy during the pandemic. Stella
noted: “They asked us if we could, with like our full department … host three events a week.”
Changing expectations included taking on new responsibilities not in their job description as a
result of staff attrition. Participants across all of the student service roles were equally likely to
mention staff attrition as a reflection of the changing nature of the pandemic within the
workplace. Abby stated: “We’re definitely seeing a lot of burnout and starting to see a lot of
turnover,” while Elena shared: “with staff leaving new staff comes in. And it’s like, we started at
ground zero again.”
In summary, interviews with staff participants revealed three strategies or practices that
were used to address belonging during the pandemic. Those strategies included referring students
to campus services and resources, including mental health resources; hosting or facilitating a
programming of various kinds; and supporting paid and unpaid student opportunities. In
91

addition, staff articulated a handful of techniques or approaches that enhanced or limited their
ability to implement these belonging strategies: collaborating with other units or departments to
leverage finite resources; utilizing technology to connect and communicate with students; and
managing additional work responsibilities as a result of staff attrition, new leadership, or the
impact of the pandemic within the organization. Next, data from open-ended survey items will
detail belonging strategies and practices identified by students.
Belonging Strategies and Practices Identified by Students
Several themes arose from student respondents in response to services and programs they
utilized to support or enhance their belonging. One theme, programming, encompassed two sub-
topics, including student organizations/events and in-person events. It is notable that student
participation in programming varied. In addition to programming, students identified two
specific resources or services they utilized: mental health and university employees. The next
several sections provide rich detail about the programs and services identified by students.
Programming. Student participation in or use of services and programs varied. There
was a contrast between students who shared they attended many or all events or services
available to them and other students who said they participated in nothing. One respondent
explained: “Never participated in anything bc [sic] I’m focused on school and never really had
any friends to go with to do activities. Online activities aren’t the same as in person bc [sic] you
can’t really talk to people.” Another student expressed they attended “nothing really since lots of
stuff had been canceled [sic].”
In addition, programming, as a theme, presented in three different ways (positive, neutral,
and negative) via the student responses. First, for some respondents programming was a form of
positive engagement with their peers: “Even though the pandemic [was] still happening, getting
92

down [to] the events in person really made a difference and a lot of people came out and had
fun.” In addition, many respondents identified satisfaction with in-person programming and a
longing for face-to-face engagement that was met through in-person programming. Second, it
was clear that programming did not meet all students’ needs: “they were mostly competitive
games and allowed for less fellowship with my peers. The events we had and still have on
campus feel very repetitive at times.” And finally, as previously mentioned, some respondents
indicated they did not attend programming: “I didn’t attend anything. I didn’t feel like the school
tried hard enough to promote student’s sense of belonging during pandemic semesters.”
Respondents identified student organizations, including events and activities, as a
program they utilized during the pandemic. In terms of frequency, this topic appears as the most
frequently cited program or service referenced by students. Examples included: “Joining
organizations like the honors program and Chem scholars boosted my feeing [sic] of
community” and “I attended the psych society meetings during the pandemic and I felt that
helped me alot [sic].” General references to student organizations included the use of terms such
as “sorority” or “club.”
In-person events was another theme contained within the program category. In response
to the question, students stated specific events, including “Oktoberfest, latino [sic] night, and
sports events;” community service, residence hall programming, and educational workshops. In-
person events were primarily mentioned in positive or affirmative ways throughout student
responses. The student activities and residential life units, including specific staff employed in
those units, were explicitly referenced as providing in-person programming. One student stated:
“The head of campus activity board here though is awesome and very welcoming.” Individual
staff or unit efforts were apparent to some students; more than one student responded to an open-
93

ended question with the specific name of a staff member or department name. For example, one
student indicated a positive experience with in-person programming hosted by this unit: “All
events sponsored by residence life were great and brought out a good population of students to
meet and make friends.” Another student simply named the unit in their response: “Resident [sic]
life,” while a different respondent highlighted a positive experience with programming “in the
dorm.”
Resources. Programming was identified by students as a service or event that supported
or enhanced their belonging during the pandemic. In addition, student respondents articulated
two resources they utilized that provided support. Counseling resources and the counseling
department were referenced on multiple occasions in relation to the open-ended question about
service and program utilization. Responses referencing counseling resources were varied; some
respondents reflected use of these resources while others acknowledged their presence, but did
not utilize the resources. For example: “I knew that counseling was available through [SRU] but
I felt like it wasn’t necessary” and “I would have liked for more mental health
resources/activities to have been available outside the counseling area.” Respondents also noted
the significance and importance of programs and services connected to counseling: “The
counseling services literally got me through the pandemic.” One particularly poignant response
reflects the high mental health stakes for students during the pandemic: “Most importantly, going
to counseling saved my life and kept me from leaving [SRU].”
Faculty and staff appeared as a resource referenced by students. In relation to
terminology, faculty were referenced as professors and teachers. Staff were either identified as
representatives of a specific department or as a collective “staff.” The university or school was
referenced on multiple occasions—it was unclear if students were referring to all SRU
94

employees, staff only, or university administrators. Responses reflected two opposing
experiences: appreciation for faculty, staff, or university efforts and support during the pandemic
and a dissatisfaction with institutional efforts and a lack of support from faculty, staff, or the
university. Students frequently expressed acknowledgement of and appreciation for faculty, staff,
and university efforts. Examples included: “They did the best with what they had! They tried to
stay active! Was it the best, heck no, but I say it was pretty dang good for putting it together!”
and “Professors would frequently check up on me by email. they [sic] did an amazing job doing
it online.” In contrast, one student shared: “I didn’t feel like the school tried hard enough to
promote student’s [sic] sense of belonging during pandemic semesters.” Another student noted:
“I felt like no one even cared.”
As illustrated, students identified programming and resources as impacting their sense of
belonging during the pandemic. While many students referenced student organizations and
student organization events or activities, there was also a finding of mixed results in terms of
usage of and satisfaction with various forms of programming and campus resources. For many
students, they needed and used support services, such as counseling and residential life. Finally,
more respondents than not expressed appreciation for faculty, staff, or institutional efforts during
the pandemic.
Summary
A mixed methods research approach provided data to answer the research questions. In
relation to research question one, student respondents had a high sense of belonging at the time
of survey completion, February 2022. Across all three belonging subscales and the non-subscale
belonging items, responses underscored high levels of belonging. In relation to research question
two, findings were varied as student respondents expressed mixed reactions to their sense of
95

belonging during the pandemic. Furthermore, qualitative data from students underscored this
variable experience during the pandemic. In relation to research question three, staff respondents
identified making connections with students as the primary strategy to address belonging during
the pandemic. The ways in which they did so included several practices: making referrals to
resources, primary mental health resources; facilitating and hosting a wide variety of
programming, both in-person and to a lesser degree, virtually; and supporting paid and unpaid
forms of student employment such as the RA role, peer tutoring, and peer mentoring. Staff
respondents also noted approaches or techniques that shaped these belonging strategies:
collaborating with other units and colleagues in order to make programming possible and
successful; utilizing technology to creatively communicate with and reach students; and
navigating additional work responsibilities as a result of the evolving nature of the pandemic and
staff attrition. From the student stakeholder perspective, student respondents noted that specific
programming supported or enhanced their sense of belonging: student organization events and
activities and in-person events. That said, student participation in events and programs varied
widely. In addition to programming, students identified two specific resources they utilized:
mental health resources and university employees. In the final chapter, I interpret these findings
within the context of the literature and conceptual framework, provide recommendations to
address belonging, and state implications for future research.

96

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate college students’ sense of
belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging
during this time. This study addresses a clear gap in the literature—understanding the
psychological construct of belonging in a primarily remote learning setting during the most
recent pandemic in the last century. This study also contributes to the literature by building on
the specific mechanisms in the institutional or organizational environment that affect belonging.
This chapter contextualizes the findings from Chapter 4 in relation to the conceptual framework
and the literature.
Discussion of Findings
The discussion of findings includes several sections. First, the findings in relation to the
conceptual framework are discussed. Next, I explore the findings in relation to the existing
literature. Both of these sections underscore the significance of or alignment with the findings in
specific contexts.
Findings in Relation to the Conceptual Framework
This section summarizes the study findings in relation to the conceptual framework. The
conceptual framework is grounded in Bandura’s (1978, 1983, 1999) social cognitive theory that
addresses the reciprocal relationship, known as triadic reciprocity, between three elements:
personal factors; behavior; and the environment. Figure 1 in Chapter 2 provided an illustrative
example of the conceptual framework. Within the personal factors element of social cognitive
theory, two findings emerged: students’ belonging was relatively high at the time of survey
completion; and students had an extremely variable experience in terms of sense of belonging
during the pandemic. Some students experienced an absence of belonging, difficulty making
97

friends or connections, feelings of isolation or loneliness, a longing for face-to-face interactions,
and mental health challenges.
Within the behavior element of social cognitive theory, students articulated specific
resources or programs they utilized. Students noted that organization events, in-person events,
counseling, and residential life were significant services and programs they utilized during the
pandemic to support or enhance their sense of belonging. For example, students identified
student organizations as a program or service that enhanced or supported their sense of belonging
during the pandemic. Many students experienced difficulty making friends or even staying
enrolled. Other students stated they did not utilize any programs or services.
Within the environment element of social cognitive theory, findings about belonging
strategies and practices implemented by staff in student services roles emerged through
interviews. Student services staff identified several strategies and practices to address belonging
during the pandemic: making connections with others was a dominant strategy that included
making referrals to campus-based resources, facilitating programming of many kinds, and
supporting paid and unpaid student employment opportunities. Interestingly, student
organization events or activities were referenced by student participants but not referenced in
staff interviews. This theme reflects a form of students making connections with students—and
enhancing peer-to-peer interactions was underscored by staff in a variety of ways. It is possible
that this contrasting observation between students and staff may be due to the student-initiated
and student-led nature of student organizations that may not be recognized by staff as a program
or service over which they have agency. Alternatively, the recruitment strategy, which included
direct outreach to student organization leaders and members, may have also shaped this outcome.
Finally, staff noted approaches or techniques that shaped the strategies they implemented. These
98

included collaborating with other units, leveraging technology to communicate and reach
students, and even navigating the changing nature of their jobs due to the pandemic.
As previously stated, the study findings reinforced Bandura’s (1978, 1983, 1999) social
cognitive theory. Figure 7 illustrates the connections between study findings through the lens of
social cognitive theory. Specifically, the three components of social cognitive theory interact via
triadic reciprocity to influence one another. In this instance, students’ sense of belonging was
variable during the pandemic and higher at the time of the survey administration in January
2022. In alignment with these findings, students’ behaviors identified in qualitative findings were
also found to be variable: from not engaging in campus life at all to using institutional resources,
including accessing critical counseling programs, to attending many different types of programs.
To address students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic, staff modified the environment
considerably by considering novel ways to make connections with students (e.g., directing
students to resources or how to access resources, with a focus on mental health resources;
modifying or creating in-person and virtual programs aligned with health protocols; and utilizing
technology to connect and communicate with students). Moreover, the broader context of
emergency remote teaching (ERT) undoubtedly shaped belonging strategies given that students
were learning remotely or in a hybrid fashion for the majority of two academic years and
employees were working remotely or in a hybrid fashion.

99

Figure 7 Findings through the Lens of the Conceptual Framework
Findings Through the Lens of the Conceptual Framework

Findings in Relation to the Literature
The review of literature in Chapter 2 examined definitions of belonging, theories related
to sense of belonging, belonging and ERT, and strategies to address sense of belonging. This
section makes connections, where relevant, between study findings and the extant literature. The
primary strategy from student services staff in addressing belonging, which I termed “making
connections with students” directly maps to the belonging definition. For the purposes of this
100

study, belonging was defined as a student’s perception of support on campus and a feeling of
mattering to others within the campus community; this often includes academic belonging, social
belonging, and institutional belonging (Hausman et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2003; Ingram,
2012; O’Keefe, 2013; Sax et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2019; and Walton & Cohen, 2011). Staff
described a number of strategies for making connections with students in order to shape students’
perceptions of support and feelings of mattering at SRU.
During the pandemic, student involvement ranged immensely. While some students
participated in student organization or in-person events hosted by varying units, other students
rarely engaged with the institution and experienced isolation. Engagement, instances in which
student services staff exert agency to build and shape educationally-purposeful practices, was
significantly influenced by the ERT environment as a result of the pandemic, including health
protocols and new expectations of their role. These findings have connected threads to the
related theories of Tinto (1993), Astin (1999), and Kuh et al. (2007). To reference Dr. Terrell
Strayhorn (2019) again, “what students do (involvement) can engender or diminish students’
sense of belonging in college, which provides clues about what institutions can do (engagement)
to encourage students’ sense of belonging in college” (p. 156).
Not surprisingly, student participants described how strategies and elements in the
institutional environment shaped their sense of belonging. Student respondents noted the impact
of ERT during the pandemic on their belonging in a variety of ways, including, but not limited
to, a negative impact to their mental health, an inability and/or lack of desire to connect with
peers and campus resources, and feelings of loneliness and isolation. As one student shared:
“When I wasn’t on campus I just felt disconnected in general.” This directly connects to the
101

research on belonging uncertainty in which consequences of an absence of belonging can lead to
unhappiness, loneliness, and mental health issues (Hirt et al., 2008; Kissane & McLaren, 2006).
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations for practice have been crafted with the aforementioned findings in
mind and in alignment with the literature and research-based practices. The audience for these
recommendations is practitioners in student services or student-facing roles, including employees
in academic affairs, student affairs, student success, and other related units. Given students’
physical distance from campus life and social isolation from peers during ERT, addressing sense
of belonging is a priority for institutions to understand how the pandemic impacted students’
sense of belonging, how to address sense of belonging now—in whatever state of the pandemic it
might be, and how to best prepare for future crises in which ERT (or another form of remote
learning) is necessary.
Three recommendations are identified as possibilities to address belonging during times
of ERT or crisis. That said, these recommendations may be implemented in any environment or
setting, including as advance preparation for future instances of ERT. As practitioners consider
these recommendations, it may be useful to reflect on what steps can be taken now to establish or
implement these suggestions in advance of the next urgent dilemma or disaster.
Recommendation 1: Increase Peer Mentoring to Enhance Student Connections
The first recommendation is to implement a peer mentoring program, thereby enhancing
social integration. In the study, findings emerging from students frequently included peer
interactions (i.e., at student organization events; the desire to connect with peers, but difficulty
doing so). In addition, two different peer mentoring programs were identified by staff as a
strategy to address belonging during the pandemic. In relation to ERT, peer mentoring programs
102

can be implemented in ERT settings, as was the case at Southwest Regional University (SRU),
and also in face-to-face learning environments. Both examples of peer mentor programs that
showed up in the findings were virtual in nature and implemented during the pandemic.
Peer mentoring describes a setting in which a more experienced student supports the
growth and development of a less experienced student via advice, support, and knowledge
(Collier, 2017). Peer mentors also enable the development of academic identities through role
modeling (Collier, 2017) and provide opportunities for meaning-making that can enhance a
student’s collegiate experience (Flores & Estudillo, 2018). Sharp (2021) notes that peer
mentoring programs are also successful in facilitating the transition to college for at-risk,
underrepresented students. With this context in mind, this recommendation could focus on
serving first-year students in the mentee role and returning students in the mentor role.
Peer mentoring programs support important institutional goals. Findings from Goodman
and Pascarella (2006), Flores and Estudillo (2018), Yomtov et al. (2017), and others illustrate
that students with peer mentors become more integrated within the university setting and
therefore are more likely to persist and graduate. In a mentoring setting, integration with the
institution occurs by becoming acquainted with and encouraged to use campus services such as
tutoring, career resources, and academic advising (Flores & Estudillo, 2018).
In relation to the literature on belonging, peer mentoring is an example of an experience
that supports social integration (Sutcliffe & Matheson, 2018). As previously mentioned in
Chapter 2, social integration, one of the two cornerstones of Tinto’s (1993) theory of departure,
is engagement in the college structure through peer interactions and more. Harvey et al. (2006)
define social integration as “those experiences that help to connect students to the college
103

environment, that aid in their psychosocial development, and that contribute to their overall
satisfaction in college” (p. 32).
Peer mentoring connects to the conceptual framework in multiple ways. Peer mentoring
closely aligns with the behavior element of social cognitive theory because students actively
participate in peer mentoring relationships. In addition, peer mentoring reflects the environment
in that the program is developed and administered by a student services staff member as a
strategy or practice. While this recommendation specifically identifies peer mentoring as a
potential solution to address belonging, other related possibilities aligned with the findings
include peer tutoring programs and student employment, both of which emphasize peer-to-peer
interactions.
Recommendation 2: Support and Financially Resource Student Organizations
The second recommendation to address sense of belonging is to intentionally and
strategically support and provide resources to student organizations. As previously noted in
Chapter 4, student organization events were the most common program or resource students
utilized to support or enhance their sense of belonging during the pandemic. In contrast, student
organizations and/or student organization events were not mentioned by staff. Addressing this
gap through a recommendation centers the student experience and voice, while acknowledging
that the agency to shape belonging lies with staff. In addition, this recommendation is
particularly salient and aligns with the study given that student participants were recruited via
student organizations.
As a strategy, HEIs can consider how to best support and financially resource student
organizations. While attention is likely to be directed elsewhere during times of crisis,
identifying the types and forms of support student organizations desire and need may help
104

sustain healthy organizations (e.g., communication and outreach, training, and identification of
group or individual needs). Institutions can seek out this information from student organization
leaders in the form of a brief survey or seeking feedback via posted questions on institutional or
departmental social media platforms. Leveraging campus-based student organization advisers in
this instance may also be an efficient way to check in with student organizations and to
understand their needs. In addition, while resources are almost always stretched thin during times
of crisis, identifying financial resources that can be funneled to student-led groups can provide a
needed boost for member programs, campus-wide events, and other initiatives that appear to
enhance belonging for students. Alternative funding sources, like a student activity fee, may be a
creative option when institutional financial resources are tight.
The literature illustrates that student organizations play an important role in students’
sense of belonging. Hurtado and Carter (1997) note that “membership in social-community
organizations was significantly associated with a sense of belonging” (p. 335). These
organizations include religious groups, sports teams, and student government. In a recent study
of Latinx students, Dueñas and Gloria (2020) found that students who were members of a student
organization reported higher sense of belonging and mattering compared to peers who were not
involved in organizations. In their study, not all of the organizations identified were cultural or
identity-based groups—underscoring the significance of the connections and relationships
between students as an important ingredient. Students who have discussions with diverse others
is an engagement measure for student outcomes (McCormick et al., 2013). Similarly, Harper and
Quaye (2007) noted how Black males in their study leveraged membership in student
organizations (primarily Black and minority groups, but some non-identity based groups, too) as
a platform to lift up their identity and advocate for the Black community on campus. Hurtado
105

and Carter (1997), Sax et al. (2018), and Walton and Cohen (2011) note that peer relationships
and networks support sense of belonging. Students are more likely to stay in school when they
have peer interactions (Kuh et al., 2007). These interactions help students to feel comfortable and
connected to others.
This recommendation is connected to the conceptual framework in two ways. First,
supporting student organizations and directing resources to student organizations is related to the
environment element of the social cognitive theory. This strategy is a method to modify the
environment and can be undertaken by student services staff. Second, strengthening support and
financial resources for student organizations will enhance their ability to be sustained over time,
particularly in times of crisis, and to host organizational events and activities. This supports the
behavior element of the theory in which students participate in organizational activities.
Recommendation 3: Collaborate With Institutional Departments and Programs to Share
Resources
The third recommendation to address belonging is to increase collaboration in order to
share resources. As defined by Wood and Gray (1991) in a meta-analysis, collaboration is “a
process in which a group of autonomous stakeholders of an issue domain engage in an
interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures to act or decide on issues related to
that domain” (p. 437). Collaboration was cited by student services staff in this study as an
important technique in successfully implementing belonging strategies, such as programming. In
this study, collaborative partners helped to make ends meet in situations where resources were
limited. In at least one instance, a collaborative partnership was sought given an area of expertise
and access to a specific student population. Collaboration may be useful not only within units,
106

but also across units throughout the institution—student services staff may benefit from keeping
an eye out for nontraditional partnerships.
The literature illustrates that while collaboration in higher education may be desirable,
the structures and cultures that exist often curtail its success (Kezar, 2005a). Bolman and Deal
(2008) emphasized that organizations are complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous. In fact,
Kezar (2005b) reports there is a high rate of failure for cross-divisional collaborative ventures in
higher education. This is due to a loosely coupled system that results from decentralized
processes and decision-making common to higher education (Birnbaum, 1988; Kezar, 2014).
Decentralization leads to uncoordinated processes that reply upon individuals’ unique talents or
specializations (Kezar, 2014). Furthermore, the fact that academic systems are organized as
hierarchies (Altbach et al., 1999) acts as a barrier to collaborative efforts (Kezar, 2005b). Using a
case study methodology, Kezar’s (2005b) findings suggest a three-step model to create the
context for collaboration over time: building commitment through values, learning, and networks
to convince the campus community about the need to engage in collaborative work; commitment
and support from senior leadership; and sustaining structures, rewards, and networks to support
collaboration.
This recommendation connects to the conceptual framework for this study, primarily
within the environment component. Increasing collaboration in order to successfully implement
belonging strategies is embedded in the environment component of the model. Using Kezar’s
(2005b) model, HEIs broadly, and student services staff specifically, can enhance the
institutional environment to pave the way for collaborative work.
107

Limitations and Delimitations
All studies include limitations and delimitations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). According to
Creswell (2005), limitations are things that cannot be controlled within the study and represent
weaknesses or problems. There were several limitations within the study related to study
participants. First, the study findings were dependent upon the truthfulness of interview
participants and survey respondents. Student and staff participants may have been biased or felt
compelled to respond in specific ways, subsequently impacting study findings. In addition, as
noted in Chapter 4, survey respondents who identified as White were overrepresented in the
study compared to student demographics at SRU. Relatedly, the manner in which racial
demographic data were collected represents a limitation. In this study, all student respondents
who identified as Hispanic or Latinx provided this information via a “write-in response.” This
limited response option may have limited the students who completed the question and is
particularly germane given SRU is a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI).
The recruitment strategy is another limitation to consider. The convenience sampling
strategy for the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study was not fully representative of
these populations at the research site; therefore, excluding some voices and experiences. In
addition, the recruitment strategy itself may have influenced findings. Specifically, student
participants were recruited through student organizations at SRU. This recruitment strategy may
have shaped the finding that participants frequently referenced student organization events and
activities and had a high level of belonging at the time of survey administration.
Time itself is a study limitation. History, such as the passing of time, and maturation,
such as the changing nature and maturation of participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), presents
a limitation of students’ abilities to recall their perception of belonging during the pandemic and
108

staff recollections of belonging strategies during the pandemic. Similarly, the retrospective
nature of the questions is a limitation. While the extent to which history and maturation affected
findings in this study is unknown, it is a probable limitation given the turmoil of the COVID-19
pandemic. Furthermore, the limited time available to conduct this research within the projected
doctoral program timeline restricted the overall scope of the project. With more time, the
problem, context, research questions, and even sample populations could be further explored or
expanded, where relevant.
The final limitations reflect the study design and the researcher. First, in relation to the
quantitative data, information collected in the survey was limited to the efficaciousness of the
adopted subscales from Freeman et al. (2007). Second, as a mixed methods study at a single
research site with a small sample population, the study is not intended to be generalizable.
Finally, as is common with most qualitative research, unconscious bias on my part as the
researcher inevitably shaped data collection and data analysis throughout the mixed method
strategy.
Delimitations are choices the researcher makes in study design that have implications for
data collection. Delimitations help narrow the scope of the study to make it more manageable
(Ellis & Levy, 2009). Throughout the study, I made decisions to narrow the focus and scope of
the research to design a study that was feasible. Significant delimitations in this study included:
the selection of a single research site, as opposed to a field study, limited the generalizability of
the findings across a variety of institution type and size; student and staff participation in the
study was limited to individuals who met the inclusion criteria; the adopted subscales limited the
scope of how belonging was measured and operationalized; and it is possible the conceptual
framework, as proposed, did not capture all relevant components of the problem and context.
109

Recommendations for Future Research
Future research on this topic might include a number of strategies. Three strategies, in
particular, merit attention in the future: increasing the scope of the study to include multiple
research sites; building on the qualitative portion of the research design to include semi-
structured qualitative interviews with students; and exploring the distinctions, if any, between
belonging strategies specific to ERT and non-ERT settings. Modifying the research design to a
field study across multiple HEIs will provide greater statistical power to examine variability by
institution type, as well as student demographics such as race and gender. The addition of
qualitative interviews with students will broaden the understanding of students’ experiences
during COVID-19. The third strategy underscores the conceptual framework for this study and
would expand the literature to identify the differences and similarities in ERT and non-ERT
settings.
A fourth and final recommendation is distinctive to the research site. Access to student
participants was restricted to recruitment via student organizations. Student respondents were
likely student organization members or leaders, in addition to their direct peers who may or may
not have been affiliated with student organizations. This narrow perspective is a concern and a
study limitation. The recommendation is to gather data holistically across the entire student body
to learn more about students’ sense of belonging. A broader study will allow for an expansive
assessment of students and the factors contributing to belonging across the institution.
Ultimately, a comprehensive view of student belonging at SRU is needed to fully understand the
impact of COVID-19 on sense of belonging and the student body’s current sense of belonging.
110

Conclusion
Understanding students’ sense of belonging during times of crisis and remote learning is
significant. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, sense of belonging is a factor in student retention and
persistence (Berger, 1997; Housmann et al., 2007; O’Keeffe, 2013) and satisfaction (Thomas et
al., 2014). Students whose fundamental belonging needs are not met cannot fully attend to
academic tasks such as studying and learning (Strayhorn, 2019). In addition, students who leave
the institution may lose the many accumulated benefits that accompany a college degree: higher
overall life satisfaction, engaged citizenship and higher voter rates, better health, and increased
wages (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017; Carnevale & Rose, 2015; Caruth, 2018;
Perna, 2005).
The aforementioned recommendations illuminate strategies and practices, informed by
both the findings from this study and the literature, aimed to address belonging and that which
can be implemented in ERT and non-ERT settings. The recommendations consider known
strategies for addressing belonging, including academic and social integration and belonging
interventions. The three recommendations (establishing a peer mentoring program, supporting
student organizations, and increasing collaboration among institutional units) are specific to the
research site and in alignment with study findings from undergraduate students and student
services staff at SRU. Imagine a student eating alone in the dining hall, considering their
continued future at the institution and wondering if they belong or are valued at this place. Or,
imagine a student tucked away in their bedroom during an instance of ERT, seeking reprieve
from family dynamics and emerging crises in their community. In both instances, understanding
belonging and belonging strategies during critical and non-critical times is urgently important for
institutions and practitioners alike in higher education.
111

References
Abdulrahim, H., & Mabrouk, F. (2020). COVID-19 and the digital transformation of Saudi
higher education. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15, 291–306.
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online
learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1,
100011.
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2011. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P. J. (1999). American higher education in the
twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Alqurshi, A. (2020). Investigating the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on pharmaceutical
education in Saudi Arabia - A call for a remote contingency strategy. Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal, 28, 1075–1083.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2017). The future of undergraduate education, the
future of America. Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education.
https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/Future-of-
Undergraduate-Education.pdf
American Institutes for Research. (2012). Delta Cost Project: The institutional costs of student
attrition. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536126.pdf
Anderson, G. (2020, September 11). Students in great need of mental health support during
pandemic. Inside Higher Ed.
112

https://www.insidehighered.com/print/news/2020/09/11/students-great-need-mental-
health-support-during-pandemic
Anderson, G. (2021, January 28). Survey: Pandemic Hurt Students, but They Aren’t Seeking
Help. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/01/28/survey-
pandemic-hurt-students-they-arent-seeking-help
Aslanian, S. (2020, August 20). Some small colleges are closing their doors for good amid
pandemic. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/2020/08/20/some-small-colleges-
closing-for-good-covid19/
Astin, A. & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal
of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263
Astin, A. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College of Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529. (Reprinted from Astin, A. (1984). Student
involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 25, 297–308).
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-system in reciprocal determinism. The American Psychologist, 33(4),
344–358.
Bandura, A. (1983). Temporal dynamics and decomposition of reciprocal determinism: A reply
to Phillips and Orton. Psychological Review, 90(2), 166–170.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.),
Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). New York: Guilford Publications.
(Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. Guilford
113

Press.)
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Barker, L., Hovey, C. L., & Thompson, L. D. (2014, October 22–25). Results of a large-scale,
multi-institutional study of undergraduate retention in computing. [Paper presentation].
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Madrid, Spain.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529.
Berger, J. B. (1997). Students’ sense of community in residence halls, social integration, and
first-year persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(5), 441–452.
Binning, K. R., Kaufmann, N., McGreevy, E. M., Fotuhi, O., Chen, S., Marshman, E., Kalender,
Z. Y., Limeri, L. B., Betancur, L., & Singh, C. (2020). Changing social contexts to foster
equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention. Psychological
Science, 31(9), 1059–1070.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Boggs, H., Forero-Hernandez, P., Laboissiere, M. & Neher, K. (2021, February 15). Scaling
online education: Five lessons for colleges. McKinsey & Company.
114

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/scaling-
online-education-five-lessons-for-colleges
Bollen, J. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Force, 69(2), 479–504.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
Jossey-Bass.
Bouchrika, I. (2020, June 30). 50 online education statistics: 2020/2021 data on higher learning
& corporate training. Guide2Research. https://www.guide2research.com/research/online-
education-statistics
Bower, M. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 50(3), 1053–1048.
Brady, S. T., Cohen, G. L., Jarvis, S. N., & Walton, G. M. (2020). A brief social-belonging
intervention in college improves adult outcomes for black Americans. Science Advances,
6(18), 1–12.
Braxton, J. M., Shaw Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto's theory of
college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research (Vol. 12, pp. 107–164).
Brooks, C. & Grajek, S. (2020, March 12). Faculty readiness to begin fully remote teaching.
EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/3/faculty-readiness-to-begin-fully-
remote-teaching
Brown, M., Hughes, H., Keppell, M., Hard, N., & Smith, L. (2015). Stories from students in their
first semester of distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 16(4), 1–17.
115

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2020). Research design and
methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage Publications.
Busta, H. (2020, December 23). 7 charts that give a snapshot of college enrollment this fall.
Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/7-charts-that-give-a-snapshot-of-
college-enrollment-this-fall/588276/
Buttler, T., George, D., & Bruggemann, K. (2021). Student input on the effectiveness of the shift
to emergency remote teaching due to the COVID crisis: Structural equation modeling
creates a more complete picture. International Journal of Educational Research Open,
2(2), 2666–3740.
Carnevale, A. P. & Rose, S. J. (2015). The economy goes to college: The hidden promise of
higher education in the post-industrial service economy. Center on Education and the
Workforce, Georgetown University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558183.pdf
Caruth, G. D. (2018). Student engagement, retention, and motivation: Assessing academic
success in today’s college students. Participatory Educational Research, 5(1), 17–30.
Choenarom, C., Williams, R. A., & Hagerty, B. M. (2005). The role of sense of belonging and
social support on stress and depression in individuals with depression. Archives of
Psychiatric Nursing, 19(1), 18–29.
College Transition Collaborative. (2020). Student experience project: Copilot-ascend.
http://collegetransitioncollaborative.org/student-experience/
Collier, P. J. (2017). Why peer mentoring is an effective approach for promoting college student
success. Metropolitan Universities, 28(3), 9–19.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
116

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Crick, T., Knight, C., Watermeyer, R., & Goodall, J. (2020, September). The impact of COVID-
19 and “Emergency Remote Teaching” on the UK computer science education
community. In United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference
(pp. 31–37).
Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 35–52.
Delnoij, L. E. C., Dirkx, K. J. H., Janssen, J. P. W., & Martens, R. L. (2020). Predicting and
resolving non-completion in higher (online) education – A literature review. Educational
Research Review, 29.
Diep, N. A. (2017). Online interaction quality among adult learners: The role of sense of
belonging and perceived learning benefits. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 16(2), 71–78.
Dueñas, M., & Gloria, A. M. (2020). ¡Pertenecemos y tenemos importancia aquí! Exploring
sense of belonging and mattering for first-generation and continuing-generation Latinx
undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 42(1), 95–116.
Ellis, T. J. & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research methodology:
Review and proposed methods. In E. B. Cohen (Ed.), Growing information part 1: Issues
in informing science & information technology: Vol. 6. Informing Science Institute.
Fink, J. E. (2014). Flourishing: exploring predictors of mental health within the college
117

environment. Journal of American College Health, 62(6), 380–388.
Flores, G. & Estudillo, A. G. (2018). Effects of a peer-to-peer mentoring program: Supporting
first-year college students’ academic and social integration on campus. Journal of Human
Services: Training, Research, and Practice, 3(2), 1–25.
Freedman, A., & Voelker-Morris, J. (2021). Some atypical (and charmingly oddball) suggestions
for creating belonging and community in the remote classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 87(3), 80–85.
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college
freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3),
203–220.
Garcia, J. & Cohen, G. L. (2013). A social psychological perspective on educational
intervention. In E. Shafir (Ed.), Behavioral foundations of policy (pp. 329–350). Russell
Sage Foundation.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A Community of Inquiry framework for
research and practice (2nd Ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Gillis, A., & Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 remote learning transition in spring 2020: Class
structures, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teaching Sociology,
48(4), 283–299.
Gonzalez T., de la Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Santi, F., Sacha,
G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher
118

education. PLOS ONE, 15(10).
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and
women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(4), 700–717.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom Belonging among Early Adolescent Students: Relationships to
Motivation and Achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43.
Goodman, K. & Pascarella, E.T. (2006). First-year seminars increase persistence and retention:
A summary of the evidence from how college affects students. Peer Review Journal,
8(3), p. 26–28.
Gopalan M. & Brady. (2020, November 4). Fostering college students’ sense of belonging
amidst COVID-19. Penn State Social Science Research Institute. https://covid-
19.ssri.psu.edu/articles/fostering-college-students-sense-belonging-amidst-covid-19
Gopalan, M. & Brady, S. T. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A national
perspective. Educational Research, 49(2), 134–137.
Gravett, K., & Ajjawi, R. (2021). Belonging as situated practice. Studies in Higher Education, 1–
11.
Gummadam, P., Pittman, L. D., & Ioffe, M. (2016). School belonging, ethnic identity, and
psychological adjustment among ethnic minority college students. Journal of
Experimental Education, 84(2), 289–306.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity
expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of
College Student Development 48(2), 127–144.
Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. (2015). Making engagement equitable for students in U.S. higher
119

education. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practice approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp.
1–14). Routledge.
Harvey, L., Drew, S. & Smith, M. (2006). The first-year experience: a review of literature for
the Higher Education Academy. Higher Education Academy.
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.
Heider, K. L. (2021). Isolation, burnout, and a lost sense of belonging: Combating the challenges
of distance education during a pandemic. Distance Learning, 18(1), 25+
Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university
settings. College Student Journal, 36, 69–83.
Heitz, C., Laboissiere, M., Sanghvi, S., Sarakatsannis, J. (2020, April 23). Getting the next phase
of remote learning right in higher education. McKinsey & Company: Public sector
practice. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-
insights/getting-the-next-phase-of-remote-learning-right-in-higher-education
Hirt, J., Amelink, C., McFeeters, B., & Strayhorn, T. (2008). A system of othermothering:
Student Affairs Administrators’ Perceptions of Relationships with Students at
Historically Black Colleges. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 45(2),
382–408.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., & Bond, A. (2020, May 6). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review.
http://www.cetla.howard.edu/workshops/docs/The%20Difference%20Between%20Emer
120

gency%20Remote%20Teaching%20and%20Online%20Learning%20_%20EDUCAUSE
%20(2).pdf
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.
Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345.
Hurtado, S., Álvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L.(2012). “A Model
for Diverse Learning Environments: The Scholarship on Creating and Assessing
Conditions for Student Success.” In J.C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, (Vol. 27, pp. 41–122). Springer.
ICEF Monitor. (2018, July 25). Further private college closures predicted in U.S. ICEF Monitor.
https://monitor.icef.com/2018/07/further-private-college-closures-predicted-in-us/
Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021).
Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education
during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119,
106713.
Ingram, D. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: dimensions and correlates [Doctor of
Philosophy]. Stanford University.
121

Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., & Alvarez, P. (2007). Examining sense of belonging
among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 48(5), 525–542.
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). U.S. faculty and administrators’ experiences
and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 24(2),
1–21.
Kezar, A. (2005a). Moving from I to we: Reorganization for collaboration in higher education.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(6), 50–57.
Kezar, A. (2005b). Redesigning for collaboration within education institutions: An exploration
into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831–860.
Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Routledge.
Kissane, M., & McLaren, S. (2006). Sense of belonging as a predictor of reasons for living in
older adults. Death Studies, 30(3), 243–258.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in
educational contexts. International Journal of higher education, 6(5), 26–41.
Koole, M. & Parchoma, G. (2013). The web of identity: A model of digital identity formation in
networked learning environments. In S. Warburton, & S. Hatzipanagos (Eds.), Digital
identity and social media (pp.14–28). Information Science Reference.
Krukowski, R. A., Jagsi, R., & Cardel, M. I. (2021). Academic productivity differences by
gender and child age in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine
faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(3), 341–347.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together
122

the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations: ASHE Higher
Education Report (Vol. 32, No. 5). Wiley.
Lederer, A. M., Hoban, M. T., Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2021). More than
inconvenienced: The unique needs of U.S. college students during the COVID-19
pandemic. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for
Public Health Education, 48(1), 14–19.
Lederman, D. (2020, April 22). How professors changed their teaching in this spring’s shift to
remote learning. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/article/2020/04/22/how-professors-changed-their-teaching-springs-shift-remote
Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Prentice
Hall.
Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Zehr, L. M. (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a
Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3), 237–256.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. D. Van Nostrand.
McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities of Practice. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Incorporated.
McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R. M., & Kinzie, J. (2013). Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13.
Change: The magazine of higher learning, 45(3), 6–15.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. Department of Education.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
123

Mooney, C., & Becker, B.A. (2021). Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
computing students’ sense of belonging. ACM Inroads, 12(2), 38–45.
Moseholm, E., & Fetters, M. D. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis
in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2).
Mulla, Z. D., Osland–Paton, V., Rodriguez, M. A., Vazquez, E., & Kupesic Plavsic, S. (2020).
Novel coronavirus, novel faculty development programs: Rapid transition to eLearning
during the pandemic. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 48(5), 446–449.
Muniz, H. (2021, March 22). How many college students are in the U.S.? BestColleges.com.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/how-many-college-students-in-the-us/
Murphy, M., & Zirkel, S. (2015). Race and belonging in school: How anticipated and
experienced belonging affect choice, persistence, and performance. Teachers College
Record, 117(12).
Murphy, M. C. & Taylor, V. J. (2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining
stereotype threat. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory,
processes, and application (pp. 17–33). Oxford University Press.
Murphy, M. C., Gopalan, M., Carter, E. R., Emerson, K. T. U., Bottoms, B. L., & Walton, G. M.
(2020). A customized belonging intervention improves retention of socially
disadvantaged students at a broad-access university. Science Advances, 6(29), 1–7.
Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). The impact of culture on Filipino American students’
sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Supporting students'
college success: The role of assessment of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies.
National Academies Press.
124

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021a). Distance education in college: What do we
know from IPEDS? NCES Blog https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/distance-education-
in-college-what-do-we-know-from-ipeds
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021b). Distance education in IPEDS.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data/distance-education-in-ipeds
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2021). Spring 2021 enrollment (as of Feb 11).
[Data set]. https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/
National Survey of Student Engagement (n.d.). Sense of belonging. NSSE Interactive Reports.
Retrieved from nsse.indiana.edu.
Neal, K. (n.d.). College students’ mental health continues to suffer from COVID-19. TimelyMD.
https://timely.md/college-students-mental-health-continues-to-suffer-from-covid-19-new-
survey-by-timelymd
finds/#:~:text=The%20top%20three%20causes%20of,experienced%20struggles%20with
%20remote%20learning
O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student
Journal, 47(4), 605–613.
O’Meara, K., Griffin, K. A., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., & Robinson, T. N. (2017). Sense of
belonging and its contributing factors in graduate education. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 12, 251–279.
Osman, M. E. (2020). Global impact of COVID-19 on education systems: The emergency
remote teaching at Sultan Qaboos University. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4),
463–471.
Ostrove, J. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review
125

of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389.
Ostrove, J. M. (2003). Belonging and wanting: Meanings of social class background for women's
constructions of their college experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 771–784.
Ostrove, J. M. & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college
adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2: A third decade of
research. Jossey-Bass.
Patterson, D. A., Perkins, J., Butler-Barnes, S. T., & Walker Jr., T. A. (2017). Social belonging
and college retention: Results from a quasi-experimental pilot study. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(5), 777–782.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Peacock, S., & Cowan, J. (2019). Promoting sense of belonging in online learning communities
of inquiry at accredited courses. Online Learning, 23(2), 67–81.
Peacock, S., Cowan, J., Irvine, L., & Williams, J. (2020). An exploration into the importance of a
sense of belonging for online learners. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 21(2), 18–35.
Perna, L. W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic
group differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 23–52.
Peytchev, A., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P., & Tourangeau, R. (2010). Increasing Respondents’
Use of Definitions in Web Surveys. Journal of official statistics, 26(4), 633–650.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and
universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185–209.
Ravitch, S. M. & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
126

and methodological. Sage.
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on
education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 12(4), e7541.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5
th
ed.). Sage.
Salkind, N. J. & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th ed.).
Sage.
Sangster, A., Stoner, G., & Flood, B. (2020). Insights into accounting education in a COVID-19
world. Accounting Education, 29(5), 431–562.
Sax, L. J., Blaney, J. M., Lehman, K. J., Rodriguez, S. L., George, K. L., & Zavala, C. (2018).
Sense of belonging in computing: The role of introductory courses for women and
underrepresented minority students. Social Sciences, 7(8), 1–23.
Scheffler, S. (1982). The rejection of consequentialism: A philosophical investigation of the
considerations underlying rival moral conceptions. Clarendon Press.
Schlossberg, N. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New
directions for student services, 48(1989), 5–15.
Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., & Fricker, S. S. (2004). Misunderstanding standardized language
in research interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(2), 169–188.
Schwartz, N. (2020, September 17). Colleges go virtual to address growing mental health needs.
Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/colleges-go-virtual-to-address-
growing-mental-health-needs/585456/
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
127

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580852.pdf
Seli, H. (2020). Information processing theory: Cognitive theories of learning, part 1 [Video].
Rossier School of Education; University of Southern California.
Seltzer, R. (2020, February 1). Calculating stress on colleges. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/01/new-book-examines-market-stress-
bearing-down-colleges-and-universities
Sepulveda-Escobar, P. & Morrison, A. (2020). Online teaching placement during the COVID-10
pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(4), 587–607.
Sharp, L. A. (2021). First-Year Experience Peer Mentor Program. The Learning Assistance
Review, 26(1), 15–51.
Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2020). Needs a little TLC: Examining college students’ emergency
remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 1–14.
Social Research Centre. (2021). 2020 Student experience survey: National report. Australian
Government Department of Education. https://www.qilt.edu.au/surveys/student-
experience-survey-(ses)#report
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman, R. L., Jr. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of
belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities.
Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6–20.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 51, 613–629.
Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
128

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
Steele, C. M. & Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The
psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press.
Stewart, W. H. (2021). A global crash-course in teaching and learning online: A thematic review
of empirical emergency remote teaching (ERT) studies in higher education during year 1
of COVID-19. Open Praxis, 13(1), 89–102.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Sutcliffe, M. & Matheson, R. (2018). In M. Sutcliffe, R. Matheson, & S. Tangney (Eds.),
Transition in, through and out of higher education: International case studies and best
practices (pp. 139–165). Routledge.
Thomas, L., Herbert, J., & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance participation,
success and retention in online programs. The International Journal of the First Year in
Higher Education, 5(2), 69–80.
Tice, D., Baumeister, R., Crawford, J., Allen, K.-A., & Percy, A. (2021). Student belongingness
in higher education: Lessons for professors from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(4), 1–12.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of
belonging scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(3),
199–217.
129

Tovar, E., Simon, M. A., & Lee, H. B. (2009). Development and Validation of the College
Mattering Inventory With Diverse Urban College Students. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 42(3), 154–178.
U.S. Department of Education (2020). Federal student aid. https://studentaid.gov/understand-
aid/types/grants/pell#:~:text=Federal%20Pell%20Grants%20usually%20are,receive%20a
%20Federal%20Pell%20Grant
Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2017). A sense of belonging through the eyes of first-year
LGBPQ students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(2), 137–149.
Van Heuvelen, K. M., Daub, G. W., & Ryswyk, H. V. (2020). Emergency remote instruction
during the COVID-19 pandemic reshapes collaborative learning in general chemistry.
Journal of Chemical Education, 97, 2884–2888.
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences
and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73.
Walton, G. M. & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In Elliot, A. J., Dweck,
C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp.
272–293). The Guilford Press.
Walton, G. M. & Carr, P. B. (2012). Social belonging and the motivation and intellectual
achievement of negatively stereotyped students. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.),
Stereotype threat: Theory, processes, and application (pp. 89–106). Oxford University
Press.
Walton, G. M. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic
130

and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2015). Two brief
interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships,
and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468–485.
Wester, E. R., Walsh, L. L., Arango-Caro, S., & Callis-Duehl, K. L. (2021). Student engagement
declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19-driven remote learning. Journal of
Microbiology & Biology Education: JMBE, 22(1), 1–11.
Wolf-Wendel, L., War, K., & Kinzie, J. L. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and
unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding
college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428.
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162.
Yomtov, D., Plunkett, S. W., Efrat, R., & Garcia Marin, A. (2017). Can peer mentors improve
first-year experiences of university students? Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 19(1), 25–44.
Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N., Paunesku, D., Keane, L., Kamentz,
D., Ritter, G., Duckworth, A. L., Urstein, R., Gomez, E. M., Markus, H. R., Cohen, G. L.,
& Dweck, C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps
at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 113(24), E3341–E3348.
Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Learning communities and student engagement. Research in
Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.
Zirkel, S. (2004). What will you think of me? Racial integration, peer relationships and
131

achievement among White students and students of color. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1),
57–74.

Appendix A: Survey Data Collection Instrument
RQ Research
method
Subscale or
survey section
Question
number
Item Response options
1 Survey Eligibility 1 I am a full-time, undergraduate
student at this institution
Yes, No
(“No” yields end of survey response)
1 Survey Eligibility 2 I was enrolled at this institution in
Spring 2020
Yes, No
(“No” yields end of survey response)
1 Survey Eligibility 3 I was enrolled at this institution
during the academic year 2020–
2021
Yes, No
(“No” yields end of survey response)
1 Survey Eligibility 4 I am currently enrolled at this
institution, academic year
2021–2022
Yes, No
(“No” yields end of survey response)
1 Survey Social
acceptance
5 I am treated with as much respect
as other students
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Social
acceptance
6 People at this university are
friendly to me
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Social
acceptance
7 Other students here like me the
way I am
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Social
acceptance
8 I can really be myself at this
university
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Social
acceptance
9 I feel proud of belonging to this
university
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Professor 10 Most professors at this university 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
132

RQ Research
method
Subscale or
survey section
Question
number
Item Response options
caring are interested in me Strongly disagree
1 Survey Professor
caring
11 People here know I can do good
work
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Professor
caring
12 The professors here respect me 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey Professor
caring
13 Professors here are not interested
in people like me
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree (reverse score)
1 Survey Professor
caring
14 There’s at least one professor or
other adult in this university I
can talk to if I have a problem
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey University
belonging
15 People here notice when I’m good
at something
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey University
belonging
16 I am included in lots of activities
at this university
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey University
belonging
17 I feel like a real part of this
university
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey University
belonging
18 Other students in this university
take my opinions seriously
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree
1 Survey University
belonging
19 It is hard for people like me to be
accepted here
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree (reverse score)
1 Survey University
belonging
20 I feel very different from most
other students here
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree (reverse score)
133

RQ Research
method
Subscale or
survey section
Question
number
Item Response options
1 Survey University
belonging
21 Sometimes I feel as if I don’t
belong here
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree (reverse score)
1 Survey University
belonging
22 I wish I were in a different
university
5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree to
Strongly disagree (reverse score)
1 Survey Belonging
comparison
23 Compared to now, what was your
sense of belonging during the
pandemic?
6-point Likert scale: Much better, Somewhat better,
Stayed the same, somewhat worse, much worse, I
don’t know
1 Survey Belonging
comparison
24 How was your sense of belonging
different during the pandemic?

(Please share your perception of
support on campus and/or a
feeling of mattering to others
within the campus community
during this time. There is no
limit to the amount of text you
can include in your response.)
Open-ended
1 Survey Belonging
resources
25 What services or programs, if
any, did you utilize during the
pandemic that supported or
enhanced your sense of
belonging?

(For example: attending faculty
office hours, attending
academic support workshops,
visiting Counseling Services,
Open-ended
134

RQ Research
method
Subscale or
survey section
Question
number
Item Response options
visiting Health Services,
attending a Residential Life
programming/event (virtual or
in-person), attending a New
Student Orientation
programming/event (virtual or
in-person), attending a virtual
speaker or lecture, etc. There is
no limit to the amount of text
you can include in your
response.)
1 Survey Other 26 Is there anything else you would
like to share about your own
belonging at this institution
during the COVID-19
pandemic?
Open-ended134
1 Survey Demographic 27 What is your classification? First year, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate
student, Write-in response, Prefer not to say
1 Survey Demographic 28 What is your gender identity?

Male, Female, Non-binary / third gender, Write-in
response, Prefer not to say
1 Survey Demographic 29 Are you a foreign citizen without
U.S. permanent residency?

Yes, No, Prefer not to say
1 Survey Demographic 30 What is your race?

(Choose one or more, regardless
of ethnicity. We recognize
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, including
Indian subcontinent, Black or African American,
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White,
including Middle East and North Africa, Write-in
135

RQ Research
method
Subscale or
survey section
Question
number
Item Response options
these categories may be
problematic; we use them
because they are specified by
the U.S. Department of
Education.)

response, Prefer not to say

136
137

Appendix B: Interview Data Collection Instrument

1. Tell me about your specific role at the institution.
2. How long have you worked at the research site?
3. What do you enjoy most about your current role?
4. Is there anything you’d like to add, remove, or modify about the definition of
belonging I just shared? Feel free to lean on your professional and personal
experiences that shape your own understanding of belonging.
5. Please describe an instance or an example of when your colleagues utilized a strategy
or practice to address belonging for students during the pandemic?
a. Describe this practice/strategy.
b. How frequent was this practice?
c. Where did this practice take place?
d. Would you recommend this practice to others?
6. Is there another example you’d like to share? [repeat interview probes]
7. Is there a time during the pandemic when you used a strategy or practice to address
students’ sense of belonging? Please share with me an example.
a. If no: If you could have implemented practices, what would you have done?
b. If yes: Describe this strategy.
c. How frequent was this practice?
d. Where did this practice take place?
e. Where did you learn about this practice?
f. If you were to repeat this practice, would you change anything?
8. Is there another example you’d like to share? [repeat interview probes]
138

9. Now that it is [insert month and year] – how has the institution’s approach to
addressing belonging changed, if at all, since the pandemic started?
a. Can you give me an example?
b. Can you describe what this looks/feels/sounds like?
10. Is there anything else you’d like to share that you haven’t had a chance to share yet?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined undergraduate college students’ sense of belonging during the COVID-19 pandemic and how student services staff addressed belonging during this time. The social cognitive theory served as the theoretical model. Three research questions guided this inquiry: What is undergraduate college students’ current sense of belonging right now? How do undergraduate college students feel their sense of belonging was impacted during the pandemic? What strategies or practices do students and staff feel impacted students’ sense of belonging during the pandemic? The study was conducted using a mixed methods design at a small, private university in the Southwest region of the United States. Student perceptions of belonging were gathered via a quantitative survey. Data analyses included descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with student services staff and analyzed using open and axial coding and the identification of themes. Findings indicate that while students had a high sense of belonging at survey completion, they also expressed mixed reactions about their belonging during the pandemic. Staff identified making connections with students as the primary strategy to address belonging, described as resources referrals, facilitating programming, and student employment. Students noted that organizations and in-person events impacted their belonging. Students also identified mental health resources and university employees as resources or services. This study addresses a gap in the literature—understanding belonging in a primarily remote learning setting during the COVID-19 pandemic—and contributes to the literature by building on specific mechanisms in the institutional environment that shape belonging.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Sense of belonging in college religious organizations

PDF

Well-being among Black female managers in retail banking during COVID-19

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Latine college belonging: influences and differences of immigration and college generation

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

“It was a shitshow”: testimonios of Latina student affairs mother-practitioners navigating personal and professional worlds during COVID-19

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

Burnout of female executive directors in nonprofit organizations during COVID-19

Asset Metadata

Creator Thompson, Jamie Lea (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/15/2022

Defense Date 06/24/2022

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

Tag belonging,COVID-19,OAI-PMH Harvest,practices,sense of belonging,strategies,student services staff,undergraduate

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Bañuelos, Sheila (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison Keller (committee member)

Creator Email jamieleathompson@gmail.com,jamielth@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111371443

Unique identifier UC111371443

Legacy Identifier etd-ThompsonJa-10838

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Thompson, Jamie Lea

Type texts

Source 20220715-usctheses-batch-953 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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