Elps 431

Running Head: SOPHOMORE SUPPER EVALUATION 1 1
Second Year Experience Sophomore Supper Evaluation

Katherine Glesser and Roy Rodriguez
Loyola University Chicago

SOPHOMORE SUPPER EVALUATION
2

Table of Contents
Introduction..3
Review of Literature........3
Setting the Context...4
University Context...4
Department Overview. 6
Program History...7
Program Description ...9
Program Stakeholders........10
Logic Model Description ..........11
Previous Evaluation...13
Evaluation Approach.....................13
Quantitative Approach...16
Sampling and Population...................16
Survey Design........17
Data Collection..19
Analysis..20
Qualitative Approach....22
Qualitative Design.............22
Participant Demographics..23
Qualitative Instrument...24
Implementation Procedure.....25
Analysis..26
Limitations.....27
Results....28
Next Steps..28
References..............30

Appendices
A. Logic Model......32
B. Prior Evaluation Results/Instruments....34
C. Survey................36
D. Survey Construct Map......40
E. Interview Protocol.....41
F. Consent Forms.......44
G. Coding Rubric.......45
H.Budget........47
I. Timeline......48
J. 2012-2013 Sophomore Supper Summary..49
K. SYE Background Information..52
L. SYE Outcomes and Goals.55
M. PowerPoint Slides57

3

Introduction

The Sophomore Supper, an event hosted by the office of Second Year Experience (SYE) at
Loyola University Chicago, serves as instrumental piece in carrying the mission of the office. In the
broadest sense, SYE hopes that Sophomore Suppers encourage second year and transfer students to
determine their passion areas as it relates to finding a vocation. Additionally, the event aims to assist in
the development of faculty and staff mentoring relationships with those students.
As a new office and a new program, the Sophomore Supper event is lacking a formal evaluation.
Though we were provided with the results of a short, 10-question survey administered to previous
participants of the Sophomore Supper, the results provided little information about the actual process
and outcomes of the event. It is our hope that a formal evaluation plan for this event will provide the
stakeholders with tangible instruments to assess both the achievement of learning outcomes set forth by
SYE, as well as overall student satisfaction.
Review of the Literature
The sophomore year of college is oftentimes viewed as the lost time or slump of the traditional,
4-year college experience (Hunter, Tobolowsky, Gardner, Evenbeck, Pattengale, Schaller, Schreiner, &
Associates, 2010). During the second year of college, students tend to face multiple, significant changes
in the academic setting, professional setting, and in the social setting (Hunter et al., 2010). These
changes can range from transition to major-based courses, to searching for an internship, to maintaining
friendships from the previous year. Colleges and universities put forth a number of resources for the
first year student experience for events such as welcome week, convocation, and transition assistance.
Additionally, these colleges and universities often spend significant resources on the celebration of the
successful completion of the college experience like commencement and university service awards.
Therefore, second year students are often placed on the outer rings of the university environment and
culture (Hunter et al., 2010).
4

It would be quite the reductionist act to make the claim that colleges and universities simply do
not care about second year students or the struggles they face during this time. Instead, it appears as
though much of the attention and resources at the disposal of the college or university are heavily
directed towards first year students with a strong commitment placed on ensuring that these new
students are welcomed, transitioned into their new environments smoothly and successfully, and that
they persist for a second year. Ironically, with so much attention placed on the retention of first year
students, or rising sophomores, few colleges and universities across the nation have specific program
areas or offices that aim to support second year students (Hunter et al., 2010). Although some would
argue that many colleges and universities have programs such as second year advising or second year
living communities within departments of residence life and academic advising, these programs focus
only on a portion of the second year experience and fail to assess and address the holistic needs of
second year students (Hunter et al., 2010).
The struggles second year students face are not new, but there are fewer resources and services
made available to them by the college or university than is the case during the first year or senior year of
the college experience. For this reason, the purpose of this assessment will be to evaluate the
Sophomore Supper event. This evaluation will seek to determine how effective the Sophomore Suppers
are in achieving the learning outcomes presented by SYE and how they impact the developmental needs
of second year students at Loyola.
Setting the Context
Loyola University Chicago
Founded in 1870, Loyola University Chicago is the nations largest Jesuit institution with
approximately 16,000 students enrolled during the 2012-2013 academic year (Association of Jesuit
Colleges and Universities, n.d.). Nestled in the community of Rogers Park, Loyola has the unique
advantage of being an urban institution in a bustling metropolis and prides itself as being Chicagos
5

Jesuit University (Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, n.d.; Loyola University Chicago,
n.d.). Aside from its main Lakeshore Campus, Loyola also has several other campuses in the
Chicagoland area and abroad that offer courses and a Jesuit education away from the main Lakeshore
Campus (Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, n.d.; Loyola University Chicago, n.d.). Of the
16,000 students that study at Loyola, some 9,723 are undergraduate students enrolled one or more of the
80 majors and minors that the university has to offer (Howes, 2013; Loyola University Chicago, n.d.
b). Loyola also prides itself on being an institution that values diversity, which can be seen in some of
the diversity the students bring into each incoming freshmen class. For example, the 2012 freshmen
class entered with 2,003 new students representing 44 states in the U.S. and 24 foreign countries (Loyola
University Chicago, n.d.). Of the 2,003 new students, 34% identified as students of color, 45% of
Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Protestant, or other religiously affiliated faith tradition, and 96% qualified for
need-based financial assistance (Loyola University Chicago, n.d.). Such a diverse university contributes
significantly to the overall college experience for students, but for student affairs practitioners and other
university stakeholders, such diversity can bring with it significant challenges to providing effective
programs and resources for students.
Loyola University Chicagos mission drives its academic and co-curricular experience for its
students: We are Chicago's Jesuit Catholic University - a diverse community seeking God in all things
and working to expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice and faith
(Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, n.d.; Howes, 2013, p. 4); Loyola University Chicago,
n.d.). Loyolas strong commitment to its values and social justice mission has earned it the title of being
one of the nations best values in higher education by U.S. News and World Report (Association of
Jesuit Colleges and Universities, n.d.). To follow and remain aligned with these espoused values,
Loyola strongly identifies with the five characteristics of a Jesuit education in order to help members of
6

the Loyola community remain aware and cognizant of their actions and to live out the values and
mission of the institution (Loyola University Chicago, n.d.; Howes, 2013):
A Commitment to excellence.
Faith in God and the religious experience.
Service that promotes justice.
Values-based leadership.
Global awareness.
These characteristics are ingrained into the fabric of the university and can be seen in the
universitys curriculum, student development departments, campus buildings, and everything else in
between. These characteristics, along with the universitys mission, have contributed to new initiatives
and programs such as Second Year Experience that are designed to help students get the most out of
their four (or less) years at Loyola (Loyola University Chicago, n.d.).
The Department
Second Year Experience (SYE) at Loyola University Chicago (formerly Second Year Initiatives)
exists to support undergraduate students throughout their second year at Loyola (Loyola University
Chicago, n.d.; Second Year Experience Planning Document, 2012). In understanding that students are
often left to find their own path after their first year of college, the program area offers a number of
events and resources in order to better assist second year students as they return to Loyola to continue on
with their undergraduate experience. More specifically, Second Year Experience strives to provide
second year students with a plethora of opportunities to make commitments, both internally to values,
identities, and vocations, and externally to majors, careers and community (Second Year Experience
Planning Document, 2012). Second Year Experience works with students as they develop a better
understanding of themselves, their directions, and how their stories contribute to the Loyola University
Chicago Experience. Second Year Experience, in collaboration with campus partners, provides
7

programs, services, and opportunities to assist students in their discernment processes, moving through
exploration toward making commitments (Second Year Experience Planning Document,
2012). Second Year Experience at Loyola University Chicago aims to encourage students to make
commitmentsto their major, their community, and themselves while also helping them through other
developmental milestones.
Second Year Experience has developed five outcomes for students who engage with the program
throughout their second year. First, the office hopes students feel connected to their community and
develop meaningful mentor relationships with members of the university community. Additionally,
students are expected to demonstrate commitment to their academics by declaring a major, and
commitment to their passion areas by attempting to discern a vocation. Finally, the office strives for
students to actively participate in university clubs and organizations (Second Year Experience Planning
Document, 2012).
Program History
The Sophomore Suppers program were inspired from a previously existing program at Loyola
known as the Discernment Dinners, a programmatic series put on by EVOKE, a program area designed
to assist in the vocational discernment process for Loyolas undergraduate student population (Loyola
University Chicago, n.d.). Established in 2001 by grant funding from the Lily Endowment, EVOKE
provided a number of opportunities for students to engage with faculty, staff, community members, and
peers, all with the intention of assisting students in finding their calling, or vocational discernment (Lily
Fund, Inc., n.d.; J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication, September 19, 2013). The program
hosted speakers to share personal stories about their callings, facilitated activities to bring together
faculty and staff members with students to share knowledge and their personal vocational journeys, and
co-sponsored opportunities for students in the form of retreats, leadership development workshops, and
immersion trips (Loyola University Chicago, n.d.; J. Cot, personal communication, September 19,
8

2013). Though EVOKE as a program area itself remained consistent for many years, the activities
hosted by EVOKE changed often largely due to high employee turn-over rates in the office (S. Howes,
personal communication, September 19, 2013). New employees brought in new ideas and new
perspectives on what would be the best way for students to engage with the vocational discernment
process.
One EVOKE activity which remained consistent and which has evolved with the changing
Loyola population, climate, and culture is the Discernment Dinners program hosted by the office (J.
Cot & S. Howes, personal communication, September 19, 2013). These dinners provided students who
were struggling with determining who they were and what they felt called to do in life with the
opportunity to eat a meal with a faculty, staff, or administrator at the university while discussing their
hopes and aspirations for their future endeavors (J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication,
September 19, 2013).
However, the 2012-2013 academic year brought a plethora of change to the EVOKE
program. Since EVOKE was an area funded primarily through the Lily Endowment, the future of the
office was uncertain once the grant was no longer available. Another factor as to why the EVOKE
program would no longer continue was the creation and implementation of the Loyola Experience by the
university. The creation of this new university-wide initiative led Loyola and the Division of Student
Development to reevaluate the EVOKE program in order to determine whether the services provided to
students were still effective (J. Cot, personal communication, September 19, 2013).
The Loyola Experience is a four-year plan focused on traditional undergraduate students to help
guide them in reaching certain developmental milestones during their four years on campus while also
ensuring that they complete their degrees within four years or less (Loyola University Chicago,
n.d.). The milestone that is specific to the second year of the Loyola Experience is to make
commitments (Loyola University Chicago; n.d.; Second Year Experience Planning Document,
9

2012). In order to assist second year students in making commitments and with other developmental
needs that they face during this time, Loyola and the Division of Student Development created the
Second Year Initiatives program, now called Second Year Experience, to join the already existing
Student Leadership Development program at university (S. Howes, personal communication,
2013). The creation of this new program area was a leap forward for the university in the enhancement
of the student experience while also being a step forward in the area of the Sophomore Experience
nationwide.
Program Description
Each semester, Second Year Experience hosts several events known as Sophomore
Suppers. This program aims to reach outcomes 2 and 3 listed in the Second Year Experience Planning
Document (2012) by assisting students in developing meaningful mentoring relationships with Loyola
faculty, staff, and administrators, and articulating their abilities in hopes of vocational discernment. The
program is designed to encourage networking and resource sharing between second-year students and
members of the Loyola community, as well as allow students the opportunity to share their talents and
passions with one another.
Students become aware of the event through the Second Year Email Blasts, sent through the
Office of First & Second Year Advising, personal emails from signing up on the SYE listserv, on
various social media outlets such as Facebook or Twitter, and, perhaps the most effective form of
advertising at the disposal of the office, by word of mouth. In order to ensure attendance, students are
asked to pre-register for the event through a Google Document registration form. The semi-formal event
has a business casual dress code and involves both a Mocktail mingling hour and sit-down plated
dinner or buffet. Both portions of the evening work together to provide students with the opportunity to
learn important networking skills and learn to make meaningful connections with different prominent
members of the Loyola community and with fellow second year students with discussing their
10

distinctive abilities and talents. The two Sophomore Suppers that have previously taken place (one in
the spring of 2013 and the one at the start of the fall 2013 semester) attracted and served approximately
30 students for each event.
Program Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders, or the individuals and organization that will be affected by the
evaluation process and its findings, identified for the Sophomore Suppers, those who have the most
invested into this program and who get the most out of it, are second year undergraduate students at
Loyola University Chicago (Bryson & Patton, 2010). Secondarily, the Office of Leadership
Development & Second Year Experience (namely the program director for Leadership Development &
Second Year Experience, the program coordinator for Second Year Experience, and the graduate
assistant for Second Year Experience), the Division of Student Development, and the Loyola Experience
Committee have also been identified as secondary stakeholders, or groups within the organization that
directly work with the program and office, but that are not directly affected by the evaluation process or
findings, in this program (Bryson & Patton, 2010). Being able to adequately understand the overall
satisfaction of the second year students in attendance for the event coupled with the effectiveness of
reaching the intended learning outcomes set forth by Second Year Experience, are the focal point of the
evaluation and assessment of the Sophomore Suppers (J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication,
September 19, 2013). This focus on the assessment is important because the overall learning and
development of the students in attendance may be a direct reflection SYE activities and
initiatives. Indirectly, families, friends, and the immediate community of second year students can also
be considered stakeholders in the process as well through their interactions with their students taking
part in the Sophomore Suppers.
Other key stakeholders include the staff members within the SYE office. Shannon Howes,
Director of Leadership Development & Second Year Experience, John Cot, Program Coordinator for
11

Second Year Experience, and Roy Rodriguez, Graduate Assistant for Leadership Development &
Second Year Experience, all play a role in the implementation and success of the Sophomore
Suppers. The graduate assistant for the area was the person directly responsible for the development,
logistics, and execution of the past two, larger Sophomore Suppers. Additional staff members who are
invested in the program in the event that additional human resources are the Program coordinator for
Leadership Development, Assistant Vice President for Student Development, the Dean of Students, the
Vice President for Student Development, and the new Director for Student Academic Services (Howes,
2013).
In addition to students and SYE staff members, the faculty, staff, and administrator facilitators of
the Sophomore Suppers also play a crucial role in the experience of the second year student participants
and the overall success of the program. SYEs relationship with these individuals also plays an
important role in the facilitation of the Sophomore Suppers and ensuring that quality members of the
Loyola community are eager and excited to participate.
Logic Model
McLaughlin and Jordan (2010) define a logic model as a plausible and sensible model of how a
program will work under certain environmental conditions to solve identified problems (p. 56). As the
Logic Model (Appendix A) created for the Sophomore Supper indicates, a number of resources make up
the Sophomore Supper program. For the larger dinners hosted by SYE, approximately $1,400 and two
staff members are required to run the event and to accommodate the number of individuals in attendance
(J. Cot, personal communication, September 19, 2013). Additionally, the social capital SYE invests to
recruit faculty, staff, and administrators at Loyola in order to participate in the event is an input that
must be accounted for, although, fiscally, it costs the office nothing. Though a $1,400 budget for each
large supper has been the resulting expense for the two suppers in the past, the director of and
coordinator of the area both expressed deep concern with the sustainability of the program if each dinner
12

continues to cost that much (J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication, September 19, 2013). With
this concern voiced and noted the stakeholders, the importance of a thorough assessment of the
Sophomore Suppers became blindingly apparent.
Through a networking event and sit-down dinner, students are given the opportunity interact with
faculty, staff, and administrators to address and explore their future goals, especially with regards to
vocational discernment. Not only is there the potential to significantly influence the second year
students who attend the Sophomore Suppers, but the faculty, staff, administrators, and other upper-class
facilitators also have the potential to be affected by the event as well. For the second year students
involved, a variety of intended outcomes exist. First, students have the opportunity to connect with a
faculty, staff, or administrator at Loyola in order to learn about and explore the resources available to
them on campus and to learn about different options for majors and future careers (Second Year
Experience Planning Document, 2012). Within one year after attending a Sophomore Supper, it is
expected that students commit to a major, develop a genuine mentor/mentee relationship with a Loyola
faculty, staff, or administrator, and that they begin to make plans to further engage with Loyola for the
remainder of their undergraduate experience. This may include planning for an internship or to study
abroad during the third year. Finally, longer-term outcomes for students include vocational discernment,
sustaining mentor/mentee relationships, and developing mentoring relationships with less-experienced
students.
In terms of the Sophomore Suppers, there are a few assumptions made of the students involved
with the program that must be addressed. The first assumption is that all or most second year students
are in need of some type of assistance in vocational discernment and major selection. The second
assumption made is that the Sophomore Suppers operate under the belief that most, if not all, students
who attend these events will find their discussions centered on major selection and vocational
discernment with the faculty, staff, and administrators in the room helpful. For students who have
13

already determined and committed to a career path, the opportunity to engage in meaningful
conversations with prominent members of the Loyola community on key developmental talking points
may be lost altogether. Additionally, it is assumed that a dinner in a large group setting is most
conducive for having these meaningful conversations with second year students. If a student is unable
to attend a dinnertime event due to family commitments, class, work, or other obligations, or if a student
does not feel comfortable engaging in a group setting, a Sophomore Supper-type event may not be the
best way to reach and serve these students. Finally, the hosts of the Sophomore Suppers have always
been faculty, staff, and administrators of the university. This relies on the assumption that these
individuals are the best community members, rather than alumni, local business owners, or university
donors, to speak with second years about vocational discernment and major selection.
Previous Evaluation
Second Year Experience has only administered and received substantial responses for one
assessment that was sent out for the Sophomore Suppers. The survey was administered
between September 9, 2013 and September 20, 2013 through Campus Labs at Loyola University
Chicago and was completed by 16-second year students. Though the survey gathered some quantitative
feedback (students felt strongly that the event should be publicized more), the majority of the multiple-
choice questions focused on whether students were satisfied with the logistics of the event: the location,
ability to interact with fellow students and faculty/staff members, and gaining an understanding of the
SYE office (Appendix B). At this point, the evaluators plan to develop an entirely new survey to
administer to second year students, as the current survey does not appropriately address the process and
outcomes we hope to examine as a result of this evaluation.
Evaluation Approach
To best meet the needs of the stakeholders for this evaluation, the researchers will utilize a
hybrid evaluation approach in which components of both formative and summative evaluation
14

approaches will be used to evaluate the Sophomore Suppers. Formative evaluation approaches utilize
evaluation methods to improve the ways a program is delivered whereas summative evaluation
approaches measure program outcomes and how program impacts can be linked to program activities
(Newcomer, Hatry, & Wholey, 2010). A process-based evaluation will be used in an attempt to gain an
understanding of the extent to which second year students connect with faculty, engage in intentional
conversations with faculty, staff, and peers, and build mentoring relationships with faculty members
(Newcomer et. al, 2010). As the Logic Model indicates, SYE invests a large portion of their funds,
social capital, and time into Sophomore Suppers. Therefore, we also plan to implement an outcomes-
based evaluation of the Sophomore Supper in order to determine if the intent behind the suppers matches
the students experience (Newcomer et. al, 2010).
We plan to examine general student demographics, along with the student experience of
interacting with a faculty, staff, or administrator both during and following the event. To achieve this,
our overarching evaluation questions are [1] to what extent are Sophomore Suppers effective in
achieving the learning outcomes developed by SYE? [2] How do Sophomore Suppers address the
developmental needs of second year students at Loyola? And [3] what is the overall level of student
satisfaction at Sophomore Suppers?
We will also attempt to evaluate the intentionality and authenticity of the conversations students
and members share during Sophomore Suppers. A long-term goal of the program is to serve as a spring-
board in developing faculty-student mentoring relationships. The final part of our process evaluation
will look at the long-term relationships formed as a result of attending a Sophomore Supper. In terms of
our outcome evaluation, we plan to evaluate if students believe they have easier access to faculty
members as a result of their attendance at a Sophomore Supper.
This formative evaluation, focused primarily on program improvement, will assess the program
itself, in addition to the student-centered outcomes (Newcomer et. al, 2010). Staff members in SYE
15

indicated a desire to more fully understand the student experience of Sophomore Suppers, along with the
students understanding of the purpose of Sophomore Suppers. By using a formative approach, we hope
to offer SYE with tangible feedback to improve the Sophomore Supper event in the future. The benefit
of using both a process and outcomes-based evaluation approach is that both the students experience
and the effectiveness of the manner in which the program outcomes are delivered through the
Sophomore Suppers will be assessed as a result of this evaluation.
Our approach offers a variety of strengths. First, the evaluation is focused on the overall student
experience. This very much aligns with the goal of the SYE office. By focusing on what students gain,
our evaluation will be most useful to the office. Additionally, our focus on the evaluation of learning
outcomes will be helpful to SYE as they determine the best ways to improve the Sophomore Supper
experience. The outcome-based evaluation will provide direct feedback in terms of the purpose of the
event.
Both evaluators work with second year students, and one evaluator works in SYE. While this
presents a strength because of our background knowledge of this particular population of students, there
is a potential for bias in the evaluation results. We will attempt to avoid bias by working closely with
our stakeholders to ensure the information we use for the evaluation is valid and accurate. An additional
weakness that this assessment cannot address is whether or not the needs of the second year were
appropriately addressed. Though there is research available on second year students, we cant be sure
that external factors dont affect the needs of our students in a different way. Finally, the faculty
component of Sophomore Suppers accounts for a significant portion of the students experience. This
assessment will not address the faculty experience of Sophomore Suppers, which is necessary to
understanding the holistic picture of the event.

16

Quantitative Approach
Introduction

There are several unsupported assumptions held by the office of Second Year Experience with
regards to the Sophomore Suppers and the way in which they impact the holistic development of second
year students at the university (Hunter et. al, 2010; J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication,
September 19, 2013; Second Year Experience Planning Document, 2012). Assumptions that a formal,
sit down dinner are effective in engaging students and facilitators in meaningful conversations,
assumptions that second year students are not already engaging in conversations around vocational
discernment, major selection, and mentorship, and assumptions that second year students are fully
participating in the process of the Sophomore Suppers are ones that the primary stakeholders
(Leadership Development & Second Year Experience) would like to see assessed and quantified through
data. In order to determine if the format of the Sophomore Suppers is effective, will be create and
utilize a survey to gather quantitative data on the overall student experience (Newcomer & Triplett,
2010).
Sampling and Population
The population of interest, that is, the group or individuals that will be assessed, will be the
second year student participants of the Sophomore Supper (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010). Focusing
solely on the second year students in attendance at the supper allows the researchers to gain information
pertinent to help improve the program (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010). The researchers are also aware
that by excluding members of the second year student population at Loyola, we will not have sufficient
information on whether this treatment, the Sophomore Supper, is meeting the outcomes set forth by
Second Year Experience (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010). Suggestions for future research and assessment
will be addressed later in this assignment. Supplemental information may be gathered from the Loyola
17

faculty, staff, and administrators who assist in the roundtable facilitation during the Sophomore Suppers
to gather information about faculty and staff satisfaction to further improve the event.
We will utilize census sampling, a sampling option that interviews the entire population, to
gather survey responses from all of the participants of the Sophomore Supper (Newcomer & Triplett,
2010). We decided to go with census sampling because of the relatively low number of participants at
the supper. Inherent to its design, the Sophomore Supper is intended to be a smaller, more intimate
event in which students can have the unique ability to connect with prominent individuals of the Loyola
community over a meal (S. Howes, personal communication, September 19, 2013). The larger suppers
(held at the beginning of the semester) accommodate approximately 30 to 40 second year participants
whereas the smaller Sophomore Suppers accommodate no more than fifteen second year students from
specific academic and curricular populations (J. Cot, personal communication, September 19, 2013).
Some of the concerns for analysis are (1) the risk of some participants not responding and what
that will do to the data and (2) the small sample size may not be representative of the overall second year
student population of Loyola (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010). These issues are of concern to the
researchers because in order to develop an effective means of communicating the importance of
vocational discernment and networking to second year students, we must better understand the
population of students who attend Sophomore Suppers while also understanding which students are not
being represented. This will enable the researchers to make suggestions to Second Year Experience as
to which populations of the Loyola community they might be able to better and effectively reach out to
(J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication, 2013).
Survey Design
In thinking about the survey design for this assignment, we wanted to create an instrument that
examined the process second year students went through while participating in the Sophomore Supper
(Appendix C). This process-based approach will assist us in gaining a more clear understanding of the
18

extent to which second year students connect with and engage in intentional conversations with Loyola
faculty, staff, administrators, and their peers to help them build mentoring relationships with these
individuals. To gather information about the process, some questions of the survey will be satisfaction-
based questions that will help us gauge the overall student experience during the event (Appendix D).
This will give us the opportunity to examine and focus on the level of satisfaction students have with the
facilitators, the flow and design of the event, the number of participants, the day/time, the time of
year/semester the supper is held, and the general topics of discussion. Aside from creating satisfaction-
based questions, we will also create impact-based questions. Impact-based questions will help us
preliminarily gauge some of the outcomes of the suppers that Second Year Experience develops and
hopes to reach through events such as this (Second Year Experience Planning Document, 2012). These
impact-based questions will prompt the participants to select the level in which they agree with a
statement around confidence and self-efficacy in engaging with faculty, staff, and administrators. In
addition, these questions will assist us in understanding how participants engage with the vocational and
major discernment processes. Aside from creating and using satisfaction-based and impact-based
questions, we will also ask for participants university identification number so we can track majors,
race/ethnicity, and other demographic questions to get a clearer picture of the students participating in
the event so as to better promote the event and identify which populations of second year students we
need to be more intentional about reaching out to. This question will be asked of our participants at the
end of the survey.
Our quasi-experimental cross-sectional research design will give us the opportunity to collect
data that will indicate characteristics of our sample population time of the Sophomore Supper. We plan
to use a cross-sectional design because it focuses on the patterns of data after a single collection (Schuh,
2009). Utilizing a cross-sectional design can help us identify key characteristics, such as overall
satisfaction, of students who participate in the supper to be able to identify key areas of development for
19

future events. Our quasi-experimental design will help us observe the impact of the Sophomore Supper
on second year student participants. By design, the Sophomore Supper (the treatment) does not
randomly select participants, instead, students self-select which Sophomore Supper they would like to
attend and participate on their own accord.
We will pretest our survey instrument (Appendix C) to see if the questions being asked are
understandable, non-leading, and if they will assist us in gathering the information we are hoping to
receive (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010). We will pilot test our survey instrument on the student workers
and members of the student leadership teams in the Leadership & Second Year Experience office. Some
of these students may have attended one of the Sophomore Suppers during their second year and will
provide some substantial information on ways in which the survey can be improved to better meet the
needs of our students.
Data Collection
The method in which we will collect the data for our survey will be using a pen-pencil-and-
paper survey (Newcomer & Triplett, 2010, p. 271). This method of data collection will be effective
and useful for our purposes because of our accessibility to this audience, the second year students
participating in the supper. For the Sophomore Supper that occurred at the beginning of the Fall 2013
semester at Loyola, Second Year Experience sent out a web-based survey, created through Campus
Labs, to gain knowledge about the overall satisfaction and experience of the supper participants (J. Cot,
personal communication, September 19, 2013, Appendix B). This 10-question assessment tool focused
on questions around overall student satisfaction and areas of improvement for future suppers, and it was
sent to the email addresses that the participants left on an event sign-in sheet. Responses from sixteen
participants were collected (Appendix B). We have decided to not utilize a web survey primarily
because of the unpredictability of response rates. Although Newcomer & Triplett (2010) advocate that
using web surveys along with other means of data collection can improve response rates from
20

participants, the offices past experience using such a method of data collection has proven to yield an
undesirable response. It is our hope that by using a pen-pencil-and-paper survey instrument
administered by a Second Year Experience staff member directly after the supper, we will improve the
response rates from participants. Although we hope for a perfect 100% response rate from participants,
realistically, a healthy response rate is anywhere from 70% to 80% of attendees (J. Cot, personal
communication, September 19, 2013).
An issue with utilizing a pen-pencil-and-paper survey for data collection that we must be mindful of
is the fact that some students leave the event early and, therefore, do not receive a survey to fill out and
contribute. One way in which Second Year Experience attempted to resolve these types of situations in
the past was by sending a web-generated survey to the email address of the student that left the event
early. Several issues also arose when this approach was taken. First, it was difficult to identify which
students left early if no personal communication or contact was made with the student. Second, there
was no way to ensure that students who received the web survey would actually fill it out and return it to
the office.
Analysis
In considering the best course of action to undertake the analysis of our survey, we may utilize a
combination of inferential and descriptive analyses. We will utilize descriptive statistics, statistics used
to describe a group of items such as averages, to present the data collected (Newcomer & Conger, 2010).
Descriptive statistics will enable us to collect information on our sample, not the entire second year
student population, that we do not already have as it pertains to academic major, race-ethnicity, and
other demographic factors. Although we ask for the information in the survey and although it may help
us further understand which students are not participating in the event, we do not have to further
disaggregate the results across particular demographic segments for this assessment. Inferential
statistics allow the researchers to take the statistics that are computed from the responses of the sample
21

population to make generalizations of that particular population (Newcomer & Conger, 2010). For the
purpose of this evaluation, the researchers have decided to utilize a multiple regression analysis as a
means of gathering inferential statistics on the sample population. A multiple regression analysis can be
used to predict the values of a dependent variable from a linear combination of independent variables
(Newcomer & Conger, 2010). With regards to the Sophomore Supper, a multiple regression analysis
would allow the researchers to disaggregate the data collected by various dependent variables gathered
from the demographic information we obtain from the supper participants. A multiple regression
analysis would allow us to further understand how the program is or is not achieving the outcomes set
forth by SYE and which student populations may be gaining the most from the program. It is the hope
of Second Year Experience that students who attend the Sophomore Supper are meeting the outcomes
set forth by the office because they attend a supper. The researchers also want to understand what
process students are going through during the Sophomore Supper by gauging the overall experience and
satisfaction of the participants.
In order to best display the results of the evaluation, the researchers will utilize a confidence
interval to display and convey the results of the evaluation (Newcomer & Conger, 2010). The
confidence level is the amount of, or range of, evidence the evaluators want to be sure to have in order to
be certain that they are correct in concluding that the program does indeed produce the observed effect
(Newcomer & Conger, 2010). The researchers believe that a chi-square test would be the means most
suitable for displaying the results of a confidence interval. A chi-square test would allow the researchers
to test the statistical significance of any of the relationships between the Sophomore Supper and the
students that participate in the program achieving the desired learning outcomes presented by SYE
(Newcomer & Conger, 2010).

22

Qualitative Approach
Introduction
In the quantitative approach to our assessment, we spent some time digging deeper into the
process of the Sophomore Supper. We hoped to determine if our method for engaging students was
effective, and we wanted to know the extent to which students fully participated in the event. For our
qualitative approach, we plan to look even further into the student experience that occurs at the
Sophomore Supper. Our primary stakeholders asked that we get at the root of the student experience.
Specifically, they want to know if students are achieving the outcomes set for them by Second Year
Experience (SYE) as a result of attending a Sophomore Supper (J. Cot & S. Howes, personal
communication, 2013). In order to determine if the specific outcomes of the Sophomore Supper
developing mentoring relationships with the Loyola community and discovering passions in attempt to
discern a vocationare being met, we plan to gather data on the student experience using a qualitative
method.
Qualitative Design
In addition to our survey, we will also implement a qualitative approach in our assessment of the
Sophomore Supper. Our quantitative assessment is focused on the specific processes of the suppers.
The qualitative aspect of our assessment, on the other hand, will focus on the overall outcomes of the
program set by SYE. Specifically, we plan to examine outcomes two and three of the SYE office.
Outcome two aims to achieve that students will, demonstrate deeper and more meaningful relationships
with mentors, faculty, staff and/or alumni (Second Year Experience Planning Document, 2012).
Outcome three asserts that students will be able to, articulate their unique passions, values and talents
in connection to relevant possible vocational choices and academic majors (Second Year Experience
Planning Document, 2012). The stakeholders in this evaluation are interested in learning about the
extent to which the SYE learning outcomes are achieved by students as a result of participating in the
23

Sophomore Suppers (J. Cot & S. Howes, personal communication, 2013). Our qualitative approach
will attempt to address this need.
We have chosen a semi-structured interview approach for our qualitative assessment. Schuh
(2009) describes this particular type of interview as a way to guide the interviewer from point A to point
B. However, in a semi-structured interview, the interviewer is also given creative license to briefly stray
from the prescribed questions in order to make the interview flow (Schuh, 2009). We chose a semi-
structured interview approach instead of a focus group for our assessment because of the individual
nature of student goals and relationships with others. We would not have enough time in a focus group
setting to talk to each student about their growth as a result of attending a Sophomore Supper.
Therefore, a semi-structured interview, though it will take more time for the evaluators, will likely
provide the most fruitful information regarding the learning out comes of Sophomore Suppers.
Participant Demographics
In order to determine the number of participants needed for interviews, we will use Seidmans
(2006) measure: sufficiency and saturation. Sufficiency suggests that there are enough participants
to reflect the stories of those not interviewed, while saturation occurs when the evaluator begins to hear
the same information from the interviewees (Seidman, 2006). We will recruit participants based on
those who provide us with contact information on the survey which will be distributed at the event.
Those who are interested will then be chosen to participate in an interview. Approximately 30 students
attend each Sophomore Supper. We plan to begin by interviewing approximately eight students after the
conclusion of the next supper. If more than eight students are interested in interviewing, we plan to use
maximum variation sampling. Maximum variation sampling attempts to understand general themes as
they relate to the interviewees (Schuh, 2009). We hope to gather a wide range of opinions from students
of different social identities, college majors, and with varying plans for their future. Additionally, as
Schuh (2009) states, sampling for qualitative assessments is ongoing. Therefore, depending on the
24

number of volunteers we get from our survey results, and depending on the information we get from the
first several interviews, we may need to recruit more participants to interview. We will do this by
reaching out individually via email to students who attended a Sophomore Supper, even if the student
did not volunteer for an interview. In attempt to meet our goal of maximum variation sampling, we will
reach out to the students who are the least represented in our interviews, specifically in terms of race,
gender, and academic major. It is our hope that a personal invitation to participate in an interview will
get students to participate.
As a result of our recruitment efforts, it is likely that the validity of our results may be skewed.
We will attempt to address this concern by personally inviting every student attendee of a Sophomore
Supper to interview, not just those students who are known by the SYE staff. In doing this, we hope to
recruit a more even distribution of participants. This recruitment technique also addresses the ethics of
our work. Depending on the individual, some might see this particular recruitment technique as
problematic because it requires specifically reaching out to individual students to participate in an
interview. Schuh (2009) suggests that evaluators be faithful in the presentation of the data (p. 197).
To ensure the presentation of accurate information, we plan to include our recruitment process in our
final report.
Qualitative Instrument
Our semi-structured interview guide and consent form (Appendix E and F) focuses on the
outcomes students might achieve as a result of attending a Sophomore Supper. Questions 1-6 focus on
the students overall experience as a participant of the Sophomore Supper. We hope to learn about
students expectations coming into the supper, and whether or not those expectations were met.
Additionally, the questions focus on positive and negative experiences of the supper. Questions 7-10
begin to gauge the desired impact of the Sophomore Supper: opportunities to discuss major selection
and vocational discernment. We want to know if students felt comfortable engaging with their
25

facilitator on the topics of their passion areas and vocational discernment. The questions in this section
are intentionally very broad to allow students to share what they wanted to learn and what they actually
learned as a result of attending the supper. The last section, Questions 11-13, focus on another desired
outcome: ability to connect and develop relationships with other individuals on campus, namely those
that have the potential to serve as mentors for second year students. The final question of the interview
is open-ended and allows students to share any additional information they thing is important to share
with the interviewer.
In addition to the 13 guided questions, the interview protocol also provides a script for
introductions and instructions, as well as probing questions for less verbal interviewees (Appendix E).
The interview should take no more than 60 minutes. Our questions will be pilot tested on the student
employees and leaders in SYE. Many of these students have attended a Sophomore Supper in the past,
and will be invaluable resources in sharing how students might perceive the questions for the interview
and ways to improve it. We plan to sit down with at least three different students to pilot test the
questions. Additionally, the evaluators will meet with Shannon Howes, Director of SYE, and John Cot,
Program Coordinator of SYE, to ensure the interview questions ask for the information Shannon and
John hoped to receive as a result of this assessment. This will help to address the face validity of the
interview questions. Schuh (2009) describes face validity as a review by experts to decide if the
questions formulated will gauge what they are intended to gauge (p. 123). As key stakeholders in our
assessment, Shannon and John can serve as additional resources to ensure the validity of this study.
Implementation Procedure
Interviews will be implemented as soon as possible upon the completion of the next Sophomore
Supper. Because we plan to recruit participants through the survey instrument administered at the
conclusion of a supper, it is likely that individual interviews will take place one to three weeks after the
supper. In order to prevent the need for historical recall among the interviewees, we plan to move as
26

quickly as possible after the supper to set up and execute the interviews. Roy will serve as the primary
leader of the interviews. His familiarity with SYE, in addition to his role as the Graduate Assistant for
the office will be a great fit and allow him to ask probing questions to have participants reflect deeper on
their experience Furthermore, one of Roys primary responsibilities is to plan and implement the
Sophomore Suppers. Since Roy is one of the key stakeholders in this assessment, it may be helpful for
him to hear student feedback directly. At this same time, having Roy serve as the interviewer leads to
potential bias. In order to prevent bias, our note taker will be a student employee in SYE. The student
taking notes will be instructed to be objective in recording the interview and record only what they hear.
At the conclusion of the interview, Roy and the student note taker will work together to sort out any
misunderstanding in the notes.
Interviews will take place in the SYE offices in Damen Student Center Suite 127. The purpose
for this is two-fold. First, the office serves as a convenience factor for SYE staff facilitating the
interviews. Second, inviting students into the office for an informal interview will allow them to feel
more comfortable visiting the office in the future if they are seeking guidance. At this time, we do not
plan to offer an incentive for students who participate in the interview. There are a variety of reasons for
this. First, the budget for the year did not allocate for the purchase of gift cards or food for assessment
purposes this year. Additionally, all students who are asked to participate in an interview will have
recently attended a Sophomore Supper. It is our hope that the meal provided at the Sophomore Supper
is enough for students to be willing to give us a few minutes of their time for an individual interview. In
the event that we have extreme difficulty recruiting participants, we may revisit the idea of incentives
for students.
Analysis
To prepare our data gathered from the interviews for analysis, each interview will be transcribed
by one of the evaluators. Both evaluators will read over the interview transcripts, as well as the notes
27

written by the note taker. We have already established a priori codes and a coding rubric in order to
categorize the topics discussed throughout the session (Appendix G). In doing this, we also understand
that, as a fairly new program that has lacked formal assessment in the past, additional codes may be
generated while reviewing the transcripts. For now, our codes reflect the intended outcomes of the
Sophomore Supper program: to develop mentoring relationships with other members of the Loyola
community and to explore their passion areas to choose a major and vocation (Second Year Experience
Planning Document, 2012).
To analyze our data by codes, we plan to use the cutting/sorting technique. This will allow us to
observe the major themes present in the data, which is what we hope to get from our interviews with
students. In order to address concerns of validity, we plan to use triangulation. Triangulation means
multiple ways of analyzing and understanding information (Schuh, 2009). In order to practice
triangulation, both evaluators will read through all transcripts, as well as code the transcripts separately.
We also plan to triangulate by determining any connections and similarities between our survey results
and interview data. Additionally, we will practice member checks. Member checking requires the
involvement of interview participants in order to make sure we correctly understood the information
they shared (Schuh, 2009). We will use email communication with our student interviewees as our
primary form of member checking.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to the qualitative aspect of our assessment. First and most
importantly, Roy works in the SYE office, and he is also directly connected to the Sophomore Supper
program. We hope to address this bias by using Kathy, an individual who is not a stakeholder in the
program, as a key component of the data analysis process. Additionally, student staff members and
professional staff members in SYE will be asked to serve in a face validity capacity, because of their
strong understanding of the needs of second year students and the role of the SYE office.
28

Both evaluators must also be prepared for the possibility for negative information to surface
throughout the data gathering and analysis process. Though this may make the data collection process
difficult, it is vital for both evaluators to understand this possibility from the beginning. In doing this,
the evaluators will be better prepared to view the data in the best interest of the students involved, and
not in the best interest of their position. It is also important to note that Roys position in SYE has the
potential to change for the next year. So, although Roy is invested in the program, there is an
understanding that his replacement for the 2014-2015 academic year will likely be able to view these
evaluation results from a much different lens than Roy. In the long term, both positive and constructive
findings from the data will be helpful for SYE to determine the next steps for the Sophomore Supper
program.
Results
For the final report, we will communicate results of the interviews in a table format. The table will
include each of the a priori codes that have been predetermined (Appendix G), along with a short
description of what each code means and how we developed that code. Beyond the table, we will also
provide direct quotes from students. These quotes will range from extremely positive to very
constructive to allow the best opportunity for improvement to the program. We see it as a necessary
component of the final report to include direct quotations, as these will likely help paint a more
comprehensive picture of the Sophomore Supper program for SYE staff.
Next Steps
Moving forward, there are number of next steps the researchers recommend in order to begin the
implementation of this assessment. As the next Sophomore Supper is scheduled for January 23, the
most pressing item is to reserve spaces necessary to conduct the semi-structured interviews with the
student volunteers. We also need to move quickly in imputing our survey into an online version with
Campus Labs for the students who leave the supper early and are unable to take the paper-and-pencil
29

version. While both the reservations and Campus Labs subscriptions would normally require funding,
our previously purchased subscription through the Division of Student Development, as well as our role
as an office with the division, allow us both of these amenities, free of an additional charge. Our budget
(Appendix H) lists additional resources required to implement the evaluation. The timeline (Appendix
I) lists a number of additional next steps including pilot testing both the survey instrument and the
interview protocol.
Conclusion
Looking ahead, we hope to provide the SYE office with a mixed-method evaluation approach to
determine if learning outcomes are being met, as well as to address the overall satisfaction of students.
Our quantitative and qualitative approaches provide concrete and tangible instruments to collect the data
with suggestions on the best method for analysis. It is our hope that SYE finds these useful as they
move forward in the development of the Loyola Experience for second year students.

30

References
Adams, W. C. (2010). Conducting semi-structured interviews in Wholey, J.S., Hatry,
H.P., & Newcomer, K.E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (Third
Edition). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. (2013). Jesuit Institutions [online website].
Retrieved from http://www.ajcu/institutions
Bryson, J. M. & Patton, M. Q. (2010) Analyzing and engaging stakeholders in Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P.,
& Newcomer, K.E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (Third Edition).
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Gardner, J. N., Pattenagle, J. A., Tobolowsky, B. F., & Hunter, M. S. (2010). Introduction. In M.S.
Hunter, B.F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, et al (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed:
Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 1-11). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Howes, S. D. (2013). Assessing and Meeting the Needs of Second Year Students. (Unpublished
evaluation assignment). Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hunter, M. S., Tobolowsky, B. F., & Gardner, J. N. (2010). Helping sophomores succeed:
Understanding and improving the second-year experience. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco
Lily Endowment, Inc. (2013). The Endowment [online website].
Retrieved from http:www.lillyenuowment.oigtheenuowment.html
McLaughlin, J. A. & Jordan, G. B. (2010). Using logic models in in Wholey, J.S., Hatry,
Newcomer, K. E. & Conger, D. (2010). Using statistics in evaluation in Wholey, J.S., Hatry,
31

Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2010). Planning and designing useful evaluations in
Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., & Newcomer, K.E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of practical program
evaluation (Third Edition). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Newcomer, K. E. & Triplett, T. (2010). Using surveys in Wholey, J.S., Hatry,
Schaller, M. A. (2010). Understanding the impact of the second year of college. In M.S. Hunter,
B.F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, et al (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and
improving the second-year experience (pp. 13-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J.H. & Associates (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Second Year Experience (2012). Second year experience planning document. Retrieved September
2013.
Seidman, I. (200). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (3
rd
ed.). Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.
SOPHOMORE SUPPER EVALUATION 32

Appendix ALogic Model
INPUTS

OUTPUTS
Activities Participation
OUTCOMES IMPACT
Short Medium Longer term
What we invest

Approximately
$1400.00 (per 40
people).
1

1 professional
SYE staff member,
1 graduate
assistant for SYE.
2

Social capital (in
the way faculty &
administrators are
chosen).

Time (planning for
larger suppers can
take 4-5 months,
for smaller, 1
month).

Room reservations
(space preparation
contingent on past
attendance).

What we do

Networking
activities
(Mocktail hour,
ice breakers in
tables/introduct
ions).

Staff/faculty
facilitated
conversation
(questions will
be in appendix
and focus on
vocational
discernment,
major
selection,
interpersonal
connections).

A meal.

Large group
debrief and
information
sharing.
Who is reached

Second year
students.

In the future
(specific
populations of
second years: pre-
med, business,
etc.).

Faculty/staff/admi
nistrators.

Upper-class
student leaders.

Short-term changes
we expect

Connect with
faculty/staff
member.

Learn about
different
resources.

Learn about
different major
options, research
opportunities, &
leadership
positions on
campus.

Medium term
changes we expect

Vocational
discernment.

Make
commitments
(to major,
study abroad,
etc.)

Develop
mentor/mentee
relationships.

Begin to
determine next
steps at LUC
(study abroad
prep,
internship
planning).

Long-term changes we
expect

Continue vocational
discernment.

Sustain
mentor/mentee
relationships.

Developing
mentoring
relationships with
less-experienced
students.

Determine how your
calling can impact
the world.

Go forth and set the
world on fire.
3

1
Stakeholders urged researchers to take into consideration that a new, smaller format of the Sophomore Suppers was to be implemented in September 2013 and that the financial investment
would be significantly smaller than that reported in this document.
2
The LDSYE office houses 4 staff members (1 director, 2 coordinators, 1 graduate assistant). The coordinator and graduate assistant for SYE work directly with the Sophomore Supper with
the director and coordinator for LD assisting when needed.
3
One of Loyola University Chicagos key goals for its graduates.
SOPHOMORE SUPPER EVALUATION 33

ASSUMPTIONS

1) Most second year students need assistance in vocational discernment and major selection.
2) A facilitated dinner (in a group setting) is a comfortable and conducive place for these conversations for most students.
3) Faculty/staff/administrators are the best members of the Loyola community to talk to second years about these topics.
4) The time frame of the dinner (approximately 2 hours) is long enough to have these meaningful conversations around vocation, life, and
school.
5) Evening is best time of day the event.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

1) Insufficient advertisement
2) Introversion versus extraversion (how students engage)
3) Demographics of faculty/staff/admin (is there a lack of diversity in our facilitators?)
4) Time of daywhat are student commitments? Would breakfast/lunch be better?
5) Diverse student population (students with family commitments or commuter students might not have the opportunity to participate)
S0PB0N0RE S0PPER EvAL0ATI0N 34

Appendix BOriginal Sophomore Supper Survey Instrument



Appendix CSophomore Supper Survey Instrument





"##$%&'( )*+%,-./0- 12#


Appendix ESemi-Structured Interview Protocol
Semi-Structured Interview Questions (Script)
Semi-structured interviews (SSI) are viewed to be an intermediate method of interviewing that
utilizes elements from both structured and unstructured interviews (Adams, 2010). SSIs are typically
conducted in a conversation-style setting with one respondent at a time and blends together both closed-
and open-ended questions. These questions are often accompanied by follow-up questions that enable
the interviewers to probe deeper to gain further clarification for a response or for the respondent to
reflect deeper (Adams, 2010). This interview is scheduled to last approximately one hour so as to
minimize the risk of interviewer/respondent fatigue.

Welcome and Interviewer Introductions (Brief)
Hello everyone and thank you all for joining us today! My name is (NAME) and I am
(AFFILIATION/POSITION AT LOYOLA). On behalf of ourselves and Second Year Experience we
are extremely grateful for your willingness to participate in this interview to provide feedback about the
Sophomore Supper program so that we can improve it for the future.

Framing
So just to give you some context as to what we are doing here today, we will spend the next hour talking
about your experience as a participant of Second Year Experiences Sophomore Supper. Of course, there
is no right or wrong answer to the questions we will be asking you, so do not hesitate or feel as though
you have to provide the right answer. Your honest response will be very much valued and appreciated.

Recording and consent forms
We just want to let you know that what is shared today will be recorded by
(NAME OF SCRIBE) and a digital tape recorder so we can be sure to accurately capture
your responses to our questions. The information you share will be used to make changes and
improvements to the Sophomore Suppers so as to be able to provide the best and most impactful
experience for future participants. Any information shared here today will not be released to anyone
beyond the Second Year Experience staff. We will now give you a consent form outlining your rights as
a participant in this study and our promise to ensure your comfort, confidentiality, and safety--- please
read it over and sign it if you agree to the terms stated. Do you have any questions before we begin?
(Please see attached consent form).

Purpose and Intent of the Program
The Sophomore Supper brings together sophomore students, like you, with faculty and staff to
discuss the hopes, fears, and transitions that may come with your sophomore year. We know the second
year of college can bring some anxiety, as you look to declaring your major, studying abroad, or taking
on a leadership role on campus. Our faculty and staff are here to help with good food and good
conversation. Our hope is that the one of the faculty or staff members you meet at the dinner will
become a mentor for you as you move forward during your time at Loyola and beyond.

The Sophomore Supper has several outcomes for the program participants as outlined by the Second
Year Experience Planning Document (2012):
Outcome 2
[Second year students will be able to] articulate their unique passions, values and talents in
connection to relevant possible vocational choices and academic majors.

Outcome 3
[Second Year students will be able to] demonstrate deeper and more meaningful relationships
with mentors, faculty, staff and/or alumni.

Get started- introductions
Well begin by getting to know one another more and hearing about our connections to this program and
office. We will go around and please share your name.

General experience questions:
Q1: How prepared did you feel for the Sophomore Supper?
Probes: Did you feel like you knew enough about the event to feel prepared and confident about
attending? Did anything surprise you?
Q2: How prepared did you feel to engage in personal conversations with Loyola faculty, staff, and
administrators?
Probe: Was there adequate information given to you prior to the event that let you know who the
Loyola faculty, staff, and administrators were?

Q3: Tell us a little about what the most memorable part of the Sophomore Supper was for you.
Probes: What was your favorite part, the most important thing you learned, the most meaningful
part of your experience?

Q4: Can you share what part of the Sophomore Supper surprised you the most?
Probes: What was something you didnt expect, something you learned that you didnt think you
would?

Q5: How were you able to connect with any of the faculty, staff, or administrators during the Mocktail
hour of the event?
Probes: Was it difficult to approach these people? Did you know what to say?

Q6: What, if anything, would you change about the Sophomore Supper?
Probes: What didnt have value, or had a negative impact on your experience?

Process related questions:
Q7: What, if any, part of this Sophomore Supper was helpful in getting you to connect with members of
the Loyola community? In talking about your own passions and calling in life? In talking about your
major?
Probe: What, if anything, was not helpful? Too complicated? Boring? Uncomfortable?

Q8: What things, if any, did your facilitators (faculty, staff, or administrators) do that were helpful?
Probe: How did the facilitators create an environment that was comfortable for you to open up?
To engage in reflection about your passions?

Q9: How comfortable and confident were you in being able to open up and share about your passions,
your major, your desired career path?

Probe: Did you feel comfortable speaking and sharing personal information about yourself at a
table of 10 other people?

Q10: Did being able to communicate with a Loyola faculty, staff, or administrator in a public setting like
this allow you to reflect on your passions, what you feel called to do, your major, and/or life in general?
Probe: How deep were you able to go with your conversation? Did you feel like you were being
heard and engaged in the dialogue?

Wrap-up:
Q11: What impact, if any, has your participation in the Sophomore Supper had on your involvement on
campus?
Probe: With other organizations/offices? Off-campus? Classes you are thinking about taking?
Did it at least get you thinking about getting involved?

Q12: After attending the Sophomore Supper, how comfortable do you feel approaching Loyola faculty,
staff, and administrators to talk over your goals, ambitions, and life?
Probe: Do you feel as though you genuinely connected with a Loyola faculty, staff, or
administrator?

Q13: Is there anything else you want to add before we wrap up our time together?
Probe: Anything we did not ask you about that you think we should?

Conclusion and Thank you
We truly appreciate and value you sharing your feedback with us today. The success of the Sophomore
Supper program is deeply connected with your participation and feedback for this event. It is important
to us and Second Year Experience that we receive your input and seek to understand how the experience
was for you, so that we can improve the program for the future. Thank you so much for taking the time
today to have this conversation with us! We look forward to working with you and seeing you at our
events.


Appendix FConsent Form
Consent Form for the Sophomore Supper Interview

You have been invited to participate in an interview for Loyola University Chicagos
Sophomore Supper program, hosted by Second Year Experience.

Purpose of the Interview
This interview will collect information about your experience with the Sophomore Supper
program you recently attended. Please read this form carefully, as it contains important information
about your consent to participate in this study and interview. If you have any questions, feel free to take
a moment to ask the facilitators in front of you.
Once you have agreed to participate in this interview, you will be asked a number of questions
related to your overall experience of the Sophomore Supper. While we hope that all participants will
respond to all questions of the questions we have, if at any moment in time you feel uncomfortable
responding, you are not required to do so. There are no correct or incorrect responses to these questions-
- all we ask for is for your honest response. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and
you are free to withdraw your participation in this study at any point in time without penalty.
Your name will be omitted as part of your participation in this focus group and a pseudonym will
be provided to you if you do not wish to select your own. The information that you choose to share with
us today will only be shared with the Second Year Experience staff. We ask that participants respect the
confidentiality of fellow participants and not discuss what is shared during the interview outside of the
space.

Interview Procedure
This session will be audio recorded for the purposes of this evaluation process; the Second Year
Experience staff will be authorized to use the contents of this recording for purposes related to the
evaluation.

Risks & Benefits
There are limited risks involved in participating in this interview. Participants will agree to keep
what is shared during the interview within the physical space; that they do not break confidentiality; do
not disregard this agreement; and do not discuss what is shared or disclosed during the interview outside
the space. Benefits to participation may include increased understanding of your experiences as a result
of participating in the Sophomore Supper and how it connects to your experience at Loyola and beyond.
Other benefits include providing Second Year Experience with information that can help improve the
program for the future.
If you have any questions about the interview, you may contact John Cot, Coordinator for
Second Year Experience at jcote@luc.edu. A copy of this document will be provided for your records if
you wish. If you agree to the terms above, please sign below:

__________________________ Date:___/___/_____
Participant Name

__________________________
Participants Signature


Appendix G- A Priori Coding Rubric
Cod|ng kubr|c: A r|or| Codes
ConsLrucL Meanlng ueflnlLlons
Code
vCCA vocaLlonal ulscernmenL
ulscoverlng one's passlons and uslng
Lhose passlons Lo dlscern whaL one ls
called Lo do ls a key mllesLone for
second year sLudenLs. uue Lo
parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe Sophomore Supper,
second year sLudenLs engage ln
conversaLlon around vocaLlonal
dlscernmenL and begln Lo arLlculaLe
whaL Lhey feel called Lo do. SLudenLs'
percepLlons of engaglng ln dlalogue over
vocaLlon.
MA!C8 Ma[or SelecLlon & lnvolvemenL
SLudenLs engage ln conversaLlon around
ma[or selecLlon and how Lo furLher Lhelr
lnvolvemenL wlLhln Lhelr academlc
dlsclpllne. SLudenLs' percepLlons on role
of ma[or selecLlon and lnvolvemenL.
8LLA1L 8ulld 8elaLlonshlps
Second year sLudenLs ofLen flnd lL
dlfflculL Lo bulld and malnLaln
relaLlonshlps wlLh auLhorlLy flgures.
SLudenLs who aLLend Lhe Sophomore
Supper Lry Lo bulld relaLlonshlps wlLh
oLher aLLendees. Any commenLs made
abouL bulldlng relaLlonshlps durlng Lhe
supper.
CCnnLC1 Make ConnecLlons
ConnecLlng wlLh peers and professlonals
aL a unlverslLy helps reLaln sLudenLs.
Second year sLudenLs aLLempL Lo make
connecLlons wlLh oLher aLLendees Lo add
Lo Lhelr personal and professlonal
neLworks. Any commenLs made on
connecLlng wlLh oLhers aL Lhe supper.

nL1WC8k uevelop neLworklng Skllls
1he Sophomore Supper provldes second
year sLudenLs wlLh Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
pracLlce essenLlal neLworklng skllls.
Ceneral percepLlons of neLworklng
process or opporLunlLles dlsplayed.


Appendix HSophomore Supper Evaluation Budget

AcLlvlLy lLem CosL CuanLlLy 1oLal
Survey lnsLrumenL
CreaLlon (CualLrlcs) $0.00 1 $0.00
Survey AdmlnlsLraLlon

Campus Labs (vla
Leadershlp
uevelopmenL & Second
?ear Lxperlence
accounL) $0.00 1 $0.00
lnLervlews

8oom reservaLlon
(uamen 8M 128 $0.00 1 $0.00

ulglLal audlo recorder
(Apple lad from LuS?L) $0.00 1 $0.00

rlnL ouLs of lnLervlew
quesLlons
$0.00 13 $0.00

rlnL ouLs of consenL
form $0.00 13 $0.00
SLaLlsLlcal Analysls

SSS sofLware (avallable
ln Loyola compuLer labs)
$0.00 1 $0.00

uaLa AnalysL (LuS?L
CraduaLe AsslsLanL)
$0.00 1 $0.00

lnLervlew uecoder
(LuS?L CraduaLe
AsslsLanL)
$0.00 1 $0.00
8eporL ulssemlnaLlon

aper ulssemlnaLlon
(reporLs Lo LuS?L and
ulvlslon of SLudenL
uevelopmenL)
$0.00 3 $0.00
Cnllne ulssemlnaLlon $0 1 $0.00
1ota| 50.00


Appendix ISophomore Supper Evaluation Timeline

Timeline for Sophomore Supper Assessment
November December January February March
Design Tool

Pilot Test Instrument (SYE
student workers)

Submit to Campus Labs

Finalize online survey (for
participants that leave early)

Schedule Interview based on
staff availability
On-
going
On-
going
On-
going
Reserve conference room
On-
going
On-
going
On-
going
Spring Sophomore Supper #1 1/23/14
Handout survey to participants 1/23/14
Close survey 1/23/14
Email interview request to
participants 1/24/14
Email reminder request 1/27/14
Analyze Survey results, SPSS
entry 1/27/14
Send confirmation to
participants 1/29/14
Conduct Interviews
On-
going
On-
going
On-
going
Analyze interviews, code data
On-
going
On-
going
On-
going
Prepare Finalized report 3/24/14
Present findings and
recommendations 3/31/14


Appendix J2012-2013 Sophomore Supper Summary
!"#!$!"#% '()**+ ,-./
012.3-2 4-(-56-/ 78 !"#%

999:+;(:-2;<=-(*>2?-./
LC?CLA
unlvL8Sl1?
CPlCACC
Second Year Experience Planning
Document

2012-2013 Programming and Outreach Summary
3+#4+5+.$ 3/##$.,
!"#$%&'(&)*
The Sophomoie Suppei piogiam biings togethei sophomoie stuuents, like you, with faculty anu
staff to uiscuss the hopes, feais, anu tiansitions that may come with youi sophomoie yeai. We
know the seconu yeai of college can biing some anxiety, as you look to ueclaiing youi majoi,
stuuying abioau, oi taking on a leaueiship iole on campus. 0ui faculty anu staff aie heie to help
with goou foou anu goou conveisation. 0ui hope is that the one of the faculty oi staff membeis
you meet at the uinnei will become a mentoi foi you as you move foiwaiu uuiing youi time at
Loyola anu beyonu.
,-.,/,-.0 12'3"2"*(4(&)*
We hosteu one suppei this yeai, which was less than oiiginally planneu. Theie was concein with
being able to ieciuit enough stuuents foi the smallei uinneis so the laige foimat was attempteu.
Stuuents enjoyeu the suppei veiy much, which alloweu them to connect to staff anu faculty whom
they may not have connecteu with pieviously. Stuuents expiesseu a stiong uesiie to connect with
moie faculty fiom theii majoischool. The cocktail houi piioi to the uinnei also pioviueu a chance
foi stuuents to piactice netwoiking skills, which is an impoitant skill to leain foi theii futuies. The
faculty seemeu to be exciteu to host the tables anu enjoyeu the conveisations, fiom uiscussion that
evening.
5678"(
$1,SS9.89
9(("*74*$"
27
,-.0/,-.: ;&#&)*
Next yeai, SYE plans on having one laige foimat suppei, similai to the 2u12-2u1S suppei, as well
as seveial smallei suppeis themeu aiounu a paiticulai schoolcollege, majoi, oi vocation. This will
allow the flexibility to intiouuce a laige auuience to the suppeis initially uuiing Welcome Back
while giving an oppoitunity to connect specifically with people in theii inteiest aieas. We woulu
still ieciuit hosts at a iatio of 1 host pei 4-6 stuuents.
The laige scale suppei will be pait of welcome back week anu can featuie the cocktail houi befoie
hand. The small scale suppers can take place either on campus or in faculty members homes. It is
iecommenueu that the hosts be ieciuiteu fiom a vaiiety of uisciplines anu outsiue the noimal
student development group. Dinners at hosts homes would provide a unique program for
stuuents while also uecieasing costs significantly fiom Aiamaik.
Theie aie two confiimeu uates foi next yeai: Weunesuay August 28
th
at 6pm foi the laige scale
suppei, anu 0ctobei 22, at 6pm foi the Catholics on Call Suppei. The othei themeu suppeis will
take place with a goal of one eveiy one-two months.
SYE has establisheu an unueistanuing with Catholics on Call that a special suppei will take place
on 0ctobei 22 to exploie the vocation of ministiy, both lay anu oiuaineu. Catholics on Call will
woik to get hosts foi this event, while SYE will woik to get stuuents.
5678"( <"=6"#("7
$2,uuu.uu total

$Suu foi laige suppei (in auuition to $Suu fiom WB Week buuget)
$1uu-$2uu foi each small suppei
>(?"% 1*@)%24(&)*
Special effoit will neeu to be ueuicateu to ieciuiting stuuents. Baving a theme aiea shoulu assist
with this, but ensuiing each suppei fills will neeu to be a piioiity so as not to buin out the hosts.
Piompts anu othei infoimation aie available on the N: uiive unuei Sophomoie Suppeis.

Appendix K- Second Year Experience Background
!"#!$!"#% '()**+ ,-./
012.3-2 4-(-56-/ 78 !"#%

999:+;(:-2;<=-(*>2?-./
LC?CLA
unlvL8Sl1?
CPlCACC
Document
S0PB0N0RE S0PPER EvAL0ATI0N SS 53

Background
64$ 7+8+92 :(#$.'$%0$
@)- A*?*+. BC1-/D->(-E @)- F*;/ ,-./ G+.> H*/ '3;2->3 @/.>=H*/5.3D*> seiveu as one of the
founuational uocuments anu a majoi impetus foi the uevelopment of Seconu Yeai Initiatives. The
AB uocument pioviues an outline foi a tiauitional foui yeai unueigiauuate couise of stuuy at
Loyola, with the connecteu goals anu milestones that aie uevelopmentally appiopiiate foi each
yeai. The theme foi the seconu yeai is to Make Commitments. This theme reflects the national
tienus anu ieseaich on seconu yeai stuuents, inuicating a significant piece of the seconu yeai is
making commitments to majois, caieeis, mentois, anu peei gioups. It was the AB uocument that
seiveu as the staiting point foi the Seconu Yeai Initiatives Committee.
64$+.$-'029 )$;$9+#5$%-,
While still a ielatively new fielu of stuuy, ieseaich on Sophomoie Stuuents has incieaseu in
quantity and quality over the last several years. While individual students expeiiences can vaiy
gieatly, oveiall theie is stiong consensus on the following issues anu tienus conceining
sophomoie stuuents:
The second year is a time for exploring values and other inward commitments
Students are looking to attain greater academic self-efficacy
Students are starting to seriously develop career skills
4

The Sophomore Slump can include an academic disengagement, dissatisfaction with processes
in the college environment, feeling lost between different choices for major or careers, and
struggling with ones identity
Sophomores are longing for more opportunities to engage deeply with academic content areas,
such as research, meaningful mentor relationships with faculty, and more collaborative learning
experiences in the classroom
5

Sophomores are seeking connections between their present and future identities
There can be great upheaval in social groups, as students seeks to more accurately define who
they are as individuals and disengage from friends who do not support this process
6

Programs for sophomores need to focus on more than just institutional engagement, but also on
helping the student find their place in the world and help them see themselves in the future tense
7

1',,'+%< =','+%< 2%& >+/%&2-'+%
1',,'+%
The Seconu Yeai Initiatives piogiam pioviues seconu yeai unueigiauuate stuuents with
oppoitunities to make commitments, both inteinally to values, iuentities, anu vocations, anu
exteinally to majois, caieeis anu community. We woik with stuuents as they uevelop a bettei
unueistanuing of themselves, theii uiiections, anu how theii stoiies contiibute to the Loyola
0niveisity Chicago Expeiience. Seconu Yeai Initiatives, in collaboiation with campus paitneis,

4
Schaller, M. A. ,2010,. Understanding the impact o the second year o college. In M.S. lunter, B.l. 1obolowsky, J. N. Gardner,
et al ,Lds.,, !"#$%&' )*$+*,*-") ).//""01 2&0"-)34&0%&' 4&0 %,$-*5%&' 3+" )"/*&067"4- "8$"-%"&/" ,pp. 13-29,. San lrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
5
Kennedy, K. & Upcrat, M. L. ,2010,. Keys to student success. In M.S. lunter, B.l. 1obolowsky, J. N. Gardner, et al ,Lds.,,
!"#$%&' )*$+*,*-") ).//""01 2&0"-)34&0%&' 4&0 %,$-*5%&' 3+" )"/*&067"4- "8$"-%"&/" ,pp. 30-42,. San lrancisco: Jossey-Bass
6
Schreiner, L. A. ,2010,. lactors that contribute to sophomore success and satisaction. In M.S. lunter, B.l. 1obolowsky, J. N.
Gardner, et al ,Lds.,, !"#$%&' )*$+*,*-") ).//""01 2&0"-)34&0%&' 4&0 %,$-*5%&' 3+" )"/*&067"4- "8$"-%"&/" ,pp. 43-65,. San lrancisco: Jossey-
Bass
Schaller, M. A. ,2010,. College sophomores. In M.S. lunter, B.l. 1obolowsky, J. N. Gardner, et al ,Lds.,, !"#$%&' )*$+*,*-")
).//""01 2&0"-)34&0%&' 4&0 %,$-*5%&' 3+" )"/*&067"4- "8$"-%"&/" ,pp. 66-,. San lrancisco: Jossey-Bass

pioviues piogiams, seivices, anu oppoitunities to assist stuuents in theii uisceinment piocesses,
moving thiough exploiation towaiu making commitments.
=','+%
ln order Lo meeL Lhe needs of second year sLudenLs and encourage Lhem Lo deepen Lhelr own
commlLmenLs, Second ?ear lnlLlaLlves wlll provlde a hollsLlc offerlng of programs whlle also
collaboraLlng slgnlflcanLly wlLh oLher offlces Lo promoLe exlsLlng programs. S?l ls supporLed by boLh Lhe
ulvlslons of SLudenL uevelopmenL and Academlc Affalrs.
?++-$& '% -4$ 7+8+92 :(#$.'$%0$
Second ?ear lnlLlaLlves mlsslon and vlslon are framed by Lhe !"#$%&'($ *+(, -"$ ./#0',/
1$(,2-"$3(/4",. 1hls plan seLs guldlng reflecLlon quesLlons, goals, and mllesLones for each of Lhe
LradlLlonal four years of undergraduaLe educaLlon aL Loyola. 1he Second ?ear focuses on maklng
commlLmenLs, wlLh mllesLones lncludlng: declaraLlon of ma[or, creaLlon of lnLernshlp and sLudy abroad
plans, and conLlnuaLlon of Core currlculum courses. S?l ls dedlcaLed Lo worklng wlLh second year
sLudenLs as Lhey creaLe Lhese experlences. lollowlng ln Lhe lgnaLlan LradlLlon, S?l wlll be companlons
for sLudenLs on Lhelr [ourney Lhrough Lhe second year, allowlng Lhe sLudenLs Lo malnLaln auLhorshlp
over Lhelr own Loyola Lxperlence.
*+%%$0-'+% -+ @%';$.,'-8 1',,'+%
Second ?ear lnlLlaLlves flnds lnsplraLlon ln Lhe unlverslLy Mlsslon by provldlng opporLunlLles for second
year sLudenLs Lo engage fully ln Lhe expanslon of knowledge whlle beglnnlng Lo make commlLmenLs Lo
Lhe servlce of humanlLy. 1hls happens Lhrough Lhe lnLegraLlon of academlc knowledge wlLh Lhelr co-
currlcular experlences aL Lhe unlverslLy, ln Lhe communlLy, and beyond.
7$2&$.,4'# )$;$9+#5$%- 2%& 3$0+%& A$2. B%'-'2-';$,
The Student Leadership Development (SLD) program shares SYIs focus on reflection, personal and
professlonal developmenL, and supporLlng sLudenLs as Lhey dlscern how Lhey wanL Lo affecL poslLlve
change ln Lhe world. Whlle reLalnlng unlque ldenLlLles as programs, S?l and SLu wlll operaLe as one
unlL wlLh a common purpose.


Appendix L- SYE Outcomes & Goals
!"#!$!"#% '()**+ ,-./
012.3-2 4-(-56-/ 78 !"#%

999:+;(:-2;<=-(*>2?-./
LC?CLA
unlvL8Sl1?
CPlCACC
Document

C/-0+5$,

After part|c|pat|ng |n SI programm|ng, Loyo|a second year students w||| be ab|e to:
Cutcome 1
demonsLraLe a more slgnlflcanL bond Lo unlverslLy Lhrough acLlve parLlclpaLlon ln aL leasL one
unlverslLy organlzaLlon or poslLlon.
Cutcome 2
arLlculaLe Lhelr unlque passlons, values and LalenLs ln connecLlon Lo relevanL posslble vocaLlonal
cholces and academlc ma[ors.
Cutcome 3
demonsLraLe deeper and more meanlngful relaLlonshlps wlLh menLors, faculLy, sLaff and/or
alumnl5
Cutcome 4
demonsLraLe an lncreased level of academlc commlLmenL by declarlng Lhelr ma[or ln conLexL of
an lnLegraLed four year plan and acLlvely engaglng wlLh Lhelr school or deparLmenL.
Cutcome S
ldenLlfy a sense of connecLlon and belonglng Lo Lhelr peer communlLy.
Second ear Goa|s - from the Loyo|a Lxper|ence
Goa| 1
uevelop Lhe hablLs necessary Lo engage ln challenglng lnLellecLual work
Goa| 2
ArLlculaLe personal values and dlscern how Lhey lnform personal, academlc, and professlonal goals
Goa| 3
ConLlnue Lo develop meanlngful relaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe Loyola communlLy
Goa| 4
CompleLe a plan Lo sLay on Lrack for four-year degree compleLlon
Goa| S
ueepen undersLandlng of your own falLh and oLhers
Appendix MPowerPoint Slides



Elps 431

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elps 431

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: SOPHOMORE SUPPER EVALUATION 1 1

Second Year Experience Sophomore Supper Evaluation

You might also like