1

Shelby St. Clair

University of Rhode Island

Capstone Materials Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree Requirements for a

Master of Science in College Student Personnel

Instructor: Kristina M. Perrelli, Ph.D.

May 2021
 2

Table of Contents

Resume 3

Assessment Project

Introduction 6

Literature Review 6

Methods 15

Limitations 22

Findings 22

Recommendations 33

Conclusion 36

References 38

Appendices

Appendix A 40

Appendix B 41
 3

SHELBY ST. CLAIR

shelbystclair14@gmail.com • (401) 378-1558
Strategic – Analytical – Individualization – Developer – Learner

EDUCATION
University of Rhode Island – Kingston, RI May 2021
Master of Science, College Student Personnel
University of New Haven – West Haven, CT May 2019
Bachelor of Science, Criminal Justice – Forensic Psychology; Minor in Legal Studies

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Conduct & Civility Coordinator September 2019 to Present
Community College of Rhode Island – Dean of Students Office Warwick, RI
• Assist with the planning and implementation of Emerging Leaders and other leadership events such as off-campus
conferences for student leaders
• Develop modules through Comevo for online summer orientation, specifically modules related to community standards;
sexual assault prevention and awareness; and diversity, civility, and equity
• Lead the Student Government Constitution revision process to create a functional environment for student leaders to
address campus issues
• Coordinate and advise the Student Government Elections Committee to execute a full elections process for the 4 campus
Student Government Presidents, including the application period, campaigning, ballot collection, and training of all officers
• Oversee the weekly case management system for up to 15 cases and efficiently progress students through the conduct
process
• Initiate and direct incoming academic dishonesty reports by guiding faculty through the process, notifying students, and
keeping accurate records
• Develop and improve upon online conduct processes, including the creation of fillable forms and setting up virtual student
conduct hearings
• Organize meetings among conduct staff, complainants, respondents, and hearing boards to review individual cases and
decide sanctions
• Assist with editing the CCRI Student Handbook by connecting with various campus partners, compiling proposed changes,
and keeping the document up to date
• Create and maintain a manual for using Advocate, the case management system, to use for staff training
Graduate Intern August 2020 to Present
University of Rhode Island – Center for Student Leadership Development Kingston, RI
• Create and deliver a virtual Leadership Action Plan workshop to analyze leadership practices, values, and SMART goals for
75 first-year student leaders and 25 peer mentors during the annual Leadership Institute, a signature first-year leadership
development series
• Provide support to peer leaders during training and workshops for the Leadership Institute by practicing virtual workshops
and activities and delivering feedback to peer leaders
• Revitalize URI’s circle of Omicron Delta Kappa by developing a six-month timeline for marketing, applications, student
leader training, and initiation
• Co-instruct an introductory leadership course for 22 first-year students and support 5 peer leaders through the delivery of
content and activities related to leadership theories, such as Relational Leadership and Servant Leadership
Graduate Intern January 2020 to May 2020
University of Rhode Island – Memorial Union Kingston, RI
• Assisted in the successful implementation of Campus Labs elections processes for the Student Senate to elect 40 senators
for the 2020-21 academic year
• Collaborated with Student Organization Committee to streamline organization recognition processes and ensure a smooth
transition between the student leaders of the committee
 4
• Designed an assessment tool for the Memorial Union Building Managers to utilize with student groups who host night-time
and weekend events
Operations Lead May 2019 to August 2019
Yale University – Conferences and Events New Haven, CT
• Ensured successful visits for 11 different groups ranging from 30 to 600 participants by coordinating all residential aspects
of clients’ arrivals, stays, and departures to provide a positive experience at Yale University
• Reconciled visitor data and ran billing reports to ensure accurate financial records for each group
• Monitored facilities management in 8 residential buildings and communicated with the Facilities Superintendents on a
regular basis
• Supervised groups of up to 10 Operations Coordinators during inspections, check ins, check outs, and other delegated tasks
such as linen deliveries/pickups, room inspections, posting signage, classroom checks, creating key packets, and reconciling
client data and reports on Salesforce
• Served in an on-call rotation as a first responder to critical incidents pertaining to on-campus programs such as noise
complaints, sick participants, or issues within our 24-hour operations office
• Represented the Yale brand professionally to global clients through exceptional customer service
Operations Coordinator May 2018 to August 2018
Yale University – Conferences and Events New Haven, CT
• Facilitated the arrival and departure of program participants and staff
• Addressed daily facility management issues such as lock outs, damage, linen deliveries, inspections, posting signage, and
classroom checks

ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE
Advisor January 2020 to Present
Delta Phi Epsilon Sorority, Zeta Theta Chapter University of Rhode Island – Kingston, RI
• Support the Standards Board judicial process by advising the Member-at-Large through member selection, training, and
running meetings
• Facilitate a virtual house meeting for 25 residents in order to address conflict and communication issues
• Coordinate with Chapter Advisory Board for problem solving, risk management, and intervention in the chapter
Vice President of Operations July 2018 to June 2019
Undergraduate Student Government Association University of New Haven – West Haven, CT
• Supervised 50 students between the House of Representatives and the Senate
• Collaborated with the Executive Board to plan events such as the Homecoming Tailgate, professional development
seminars, and workshops for student leaders
President December 2017 to December 2018
Delta Phi Epsilon Sorority, Gamma Epsilon Chapter University of New Haven – West Haven, CT
• Oversaw the general operations of the chapter for finances, programming, recruitment, philanthropy, member education,
and sisterhood for a group of 60 women
• Utilized strong interpersonal skills to manage conflicts between members

CERTIFICATIONS AND SKILLS

Certifications
Trauma-Informed Crisis Intervention and De-Escalation Certification
Awarded by Family Service of Rhode Island, August 2020
Computer Skills
Microsoft Office Suite Canva Comevo
Google Suite Advocate Salesforce
Adobe Spark StarRez Social Media Platforms
 5

Generation Z and Leadership Studies:

Exploring Leadership Learning Outcomes

 6

Generation Z and Leadership Studies: Exploring Leadership Learning Outcomes

Understanding the characteristics of current college students and their needs is essential

to the work of student affairs, specifically in leadership programming. The purpose of this

project is to analyze learning outcome responses and enrollment data to explore the differences

between Generation Z and millennial students in an introductory leadership course in order to

identify how student leadership program staff can better support the next generation of leaders at

the University of Rhode Island. The Center for Student Leadership Development has not yet

reviewing learning outcome evaluations from HDF 290 – Modern Leadership Issues, and the

findings and recommendations from this analysis provides a useful framework for future

semesters of the course.

Literature Review

This literature review will explore the following topics: professional standards for

leadership development, differences between millennial and Generation Z college students, and

virtual classroom engagement. Standards for leadership programing in student affairs provide a

baseline for what should be done and how it should be delivered while providing room for

interpretation and adaptation. Current literature establishes those foundational standards for

leadership development across the board and the push necessary to make meaningful changes to

programs that already exist, or to create new, inventive, and exciting initiatives to expand

development. The available literature on Generation Z is limited; however, more and more

studies are being published as they age and often compares Generation Z to the generation that

came before: millennials. While generational differences are not an exact science, there are

characteristics that distinguish Generation Z from their predecessors and emphasize the need to

look more closely at how higher education can best serve Generation Z on their collegiate
 7

journeys. Finally, the jump to distanced, virtual learning and engagement that occurred because

of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 underscore the need for creative uses of technology

in the classroom and for an understanding across the board about how technology can be used to

promote or inhibit learning.

Professional Standards for Leadership Development

The Council for the Advancement of Student Affairs (2019), also referred to as CAS, has

a thorough list of all standards that student leadership programs (SLPs), such as the Center for

Student Leadership Development at the University of Rhode Island, should be following. Some

key items to note include the responsibility to develop leadership competencies in students, to

perform regular assessments of programs to make necessary changes, and to address the needs of

diverse student populations when creating or reviewing current programs and practices.

Additionally, there is an obligation for SLPs to explore how technology can be used in various

ways to facilitate student learning and development.

As SLPs develop new leadership curricula or learning outcomes, the leadership

competencies emphasized in CAS (2019) are the foundations of leadership, personal

development, interpersonal development, and the development of groups, organizations, and

systems. There are multiple delivery formats and contexts that these competencies can be

addressed through, such as conferences, workshops, mentor programs, adventure training,

participation in local, regional, and national associations, or credit-bearing courses like HDF 290,

which is the focus of this data analysis. Additionally, student leadership programs rely heavily on

theory and practical application of concepts to help students develop the necessary competencies

and skills required for effective leadership.

 8

The Center for Creative Leadership proposed five keys to success in terms of student

leadership development in higher education: “1) a proven leadership model and development

framework; 2) formative evaluation of students; 3) relevant, meaningful leadership experiences;

4) impactful coaching; and 5) tools and methods that provide a rich, engaging experience,” (Deal

& Yarborough, 2020). These practices can make high-impact leadership development as

meaningful as possible for students by providing them with strong communication and

collaboration skills, resilience, and adaptability (Deal & Yarborough, 2020). In order for student

leadership programs to be effective, all leadership development experiences should be engaging,

meaningful, and relevant to students’ curricular or extracurricular interests (Deal & Yarborough,

2020). The skills gained from effective leadership development can span across all areas of a

student’s life and is essential to their overall development as a college student.

With continuous assessment and evaluation of signature SLP initiatives, the field also

needs to be adaptable and meet the needs of its changing audience. The future of traditional-aged

college students is a new generation, entering college with unique skills and perspectives of the

world they have grown up in. SLPs will need to learn to support and challenge the incoming

students of Generation Z.

Differences Between Millennial and Generation Z College Students

Studying the differences between generational cohorts can help scholars understand how

formative experiences, like world events or technological shifts, interact with the life cycle and

shape people’s perspectives of the world (Dimock, 2019). The Pew Research Institute, a

nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts research on a variety of societal issues, studied

the millennial generation for ten years before realizing a significant shift to the next generation.

Millennials are defined by Pew Research Institute as anyone born between 1981 and 1996, while
 9

Generation Z, also referred to as Gen Z, is anyone born from 1997 to roughly 2012 (Dimock,

2019). Deciding the cutoffs for generations is not an exact science, but there are some general

identifiers that distinguish these two generations. For example, Gen Z members were under the

age of five during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and have little to no memory of this event; on

the other hand, the majority of millennials were in their early to late teens and understood the

significance of that event as it was taking place (Dimock, 2019). While research about

generational differences is not foolproof and may even vary between members of the same

generation, the literature available provides a useful insight into how SLPs can best serve Gen Z.

Defining Characteristics of Generation Z

Members of Generation Z are natives to the digital and online world where technology,

computers, and the internet already existed (Dimock, 2019; Seemiller & Grace, 2016). This

constant presence of technology has shaped Gen Z as they approach adulthood in ways that

distinguish it from the millennial generation as they come of age. With the world’s issues at their

fingertips, members of Gen Z are smart, efficient, and in tune with current events (Seemiller &

Grace, 2016). The unique circumstances of their upbringing have led to a generation that

identifies themselves as loyal, thoughtful, compassionate, open-minded, and responsible

(Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Higher education needs to be ready to serve the increasingly diverse

population that comprises Generation Z (Dimock, 2019; Johnson & Sveen, 2020; Rue, 2018).

There is a need for an equitable approach in supporting the incoming generation of students and

understanding the needs of these students, both academically and in extracurriculars.

Several studies have been conducted to consider the specific, key differences between

millennials and Generation Z as the latter starts to grow up and enter adulthood. According to

multiple sources, Generation Z is more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous
 10

generation (Dimock, 2019; Johnson & Sveen, 2020; Rue, 2018; Parker & Igielnik, 2020). They

are also more likely to be children of immigrants (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). They are

progressive, similar to – and sometimes more than – their millennial predecessors; Gen Z tends

to expect more of their government in solving problems and are active in elections for those who

can vote (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). Additionally, they are on track to be the best-educated

generation yet, with 57% of 18 to 21-year-olds enrolled in a two-year or four-year college during

2018, compared to 52% of millennials in 2003 (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). Gen Z’s parents are

also more likely to be college-educated, which many influence their future decisions to attend

college and further their own education (Parker & Igielnik, 2020).

Seemiller and Grace (2016) explored the sources of motivation for Generation Z. They

discovered that more than 70% of the participants in their study were motivated by “not wanting

to let others down, advocating for something they believe in, making a difference for someone

else, having the opportunity for advancement, and earning credit toward something,” (Seemiller

& Grace, 2016). Given the context of their upbringing and the current global pandemic with

COVID-19 taking up a significant piece of their formative years, it makes sense that Gen Z

would want to support others and get the most out of their experiences. Johnson & Sveen (2020)

proposed three values that are key to serving Generation Z students: personalization, technology,

and outcomes. Generation Z students prefer to have individualized experiences and create their

own paths. They are also comfortable with technology and consistently rely on it, so using

platforms for outreach that align with those of this generation is important for engagement

(Johnson & Sveen, 2020). Lastly, transparency around the value and return of their investment in

higher education is incredibly important for Generation Z, who grew up in the shadow of

millennials facing economic struggles (Johnson & Sveen, 2020).

 11

Generation Z in Higher Education

Generation Z as college students tends to be more comfortable utilizing technology and

digital resources, as they are constantly learning new skills and navigating updates to their

favorite applications on their own time (Rue, 2018). They are the first generation to come of age

surrounded by social media which may cause them to constantly compare themselves to others

and impact their self-esteem (Rue, 2018). This may increase the need for targeted support from

campus counseling centers, not only for the potential mental health concerns of this generation

but also in ways that services are offered since Gen Z are comfortable with online resources or

receiving services outside of the typical 9 to 5 work hours (Rue, 2018).

Rue (2018) compared Generation Z to “Baby Boomer college students in the late 1960s

and early 1970s who just wanted adults to get out of the way,” (p. 9). They want to see change in

their communities and speak out when something is not right; they are willing to do the work

when others are in their way or will not step up. Most Gen Z members cannot currently vote, but

their social activism and civic engagement are still present (Rue, 2018). As they start to enter

college campuses, it is important to consider the ways SLPs and other student affairs areas can

support Gen Z in their efforts to use their voices, spark change in their communities, and develop

as civically engaged leaders (Rue, 2018). Overall, Gen Z expects career readiness when they

attend college and is looking for well-rounded experiences to help them achieve that goal.

Higher education can provide them with that through classes, labs, internships, employment, and

volunteering and leadership opportunities (Rue, 2018). As educators, we cannot expect these

students to adapt to us. We must make the necessary changes in our environments to welcome

and serve this diverse generation.

 12

When looking specifically at leadership styles for Generation Z, Seemiller and Grace

(2016) identified three aspects of how this generation defines leadership. Generation Z defines

leadership as having skills that employers want, strengths-based leadership, and understanding

the complexity of leadership (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Overall, Gen Z values transparency and

honesty in their leaders, and they want to be involved in decision-making processes as leaders.

Given what is known from available literature on this generation, these characteristics are

consistent with the values of Gen Z and this information can be leveraged to tailor learning

outcomes for leadership experiences and programs to meet this generation’s needs.

Virtual Classroom Engagement

One of the opportunities for leadership development and the focus of this study is credit-

bearing courses. Since March 2020, colleges and universities across the country have been

virtually delivering programs and classes partially or fully depending on the school. The quick

transition to virtual learning and programming presented many challenges and questions that

professionals are dealing with constantly. Confrey (2016) introduced one of the main problems

facing many educators in today’s classrooms, which is integrating technology in an effective

way. Specifically, the author evaluates how ePortfolios can be used to develop student-centered

learning environments while allowing both millennial and Generation Z students to utilize the

technology they have grown up with and are so comfortable using. Confrey (2016) emphasizes

the opportunity to make a more meaningful and engaging experience in the classroom through

technology, which is directly related to the challenges that higher education is facing with

COVID-19 right now. There is a clear need to understand how learning outcomes are being met

through virtual means of teaching so that changes can be made in the classroom environment to

better support the learning of Generation Z students.

 13

Generation Z in the Classroom

Understanding the realities of Generation Z and what they truly desire from their

education can help guide how an instructor might design their course. In the classroom,

Generation Z students expect to be challenged and engaged, and are comfortable moving at a fast

pace. A challenge for these students may be understanding the credibility of sources, given that

the age of the internet inspires a wave of false information and stories. Gen Z may need more

emphasis and education on academic integrity to better understand what it means to cite their

sources and identify when an original idea is truly theirs (Rue, 2018). The accessibility of

information presents challenges for credibility, but also allows students to find educational

resources on demand and locate answers quickly (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). As mentioned

previously, one of Generation Z’s expectations for college is career readiness, and when it comes

to their learning, they want the skills they learn in the classroom to be useful and relevant to their

jobs post-graduation (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). They want transferable skills that they can take

with them to their future careers. Seemiller & Grace (2016) discovered that Generation Z

students in their study most preferred intrapersonal learning. These students are often more

comfortable with learning independently and at their own pace and prefer that option over

working in groups (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Their ability to utilize technology for online

research for assignments, Gen Z does not really find the need to interact with others.

Additionally, Seemiller & Grace (2016) revealed Gen Z’s desire for social learning as they also

enjoy working in group settings. Gen Z see their instructors as “facilitators of learning” and want

to actively create their learning rather than simply listening to a lecturer (Seemiller & Grace,

2016).
 14

An important fact to note about Generation Z is that with the increased use of the internet

and specifically social media, the attention span of today’s students has significantly decreased

(Seemiller & Grace, 2016). This can create many learning challenges when it comes to learning

if students are unable to focus for the length of an entire class. It is imperative for educators to be

aware of students’ attention spans and find ways to keep them engaged to facilitate learning in

the classroom. Overall, Gen Z looks for knowledgeable, passionate instructors who create

empowering and inclusive environments for their learning to take place (Seemiller & Grace,

2016). They want to take control of their college education and truly get the most out of the

experience.

Context for the Study

This project is centralized to one course at the University of Rhode Island: HDF 290 -

Modern Leadership Issues. HDF 290 is part of the Leadership Studies minor, supervised by the

Center for Student Leadership Development (CSLD). HDF stands for Human Development and

Family Studies, which is the department that houses many of the leadership-specific courses. The

minor is an 18-credit commitment open to all students with opportunities for many various

curricular requirements, including HDF 290.

The Center for Student Leadership Development

The mission of the CSLD is to “provide developmental opportunities for all students to

become informed, inclusive, effective, and ethical leaders in the global marketplace through the

implementation of learner-centered academic, experiential, and co-curricular programming,”

(Center for Student Leadership Development, n.d.). Additionally, the CSLD “engage[s] in

research, assessment, and advancement in order to positively impact the expanding field of

leadership studies,” (Center for Student Leadership Development, n.d.). Grounded in multiple
 15

leadership theories, the CSLD provides a wide range of curricular and extracurricular activities

for students at the University to engage in leadership development throughout their years.

HDF 290 - Modern Leadership Issues

According to the University of Rhode Island’s course catalog, HDF 290 is described as

follows: “Introductory leadership class. Topics include basic leadership theories, international

governance/economic systems, critical thinking, and leadership in U.S. education; community

service organizations; families; diverse workplaces,” (University of Rhode Island, n.d.-a). This

course is one of two introductory courses for the Leadership Studies minor and is offered in the

fall and spring primarily to sophomores and juniors. Instructors utilize a variety of methods to

facilitate learning, including discussion board posts, individual and group presentations, papers

and case studies, and the creation of a leadership website for each student.

Methods

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this data analysis is to explore student success in the leadership course,

HDF 290: Modern Leadership Issues, for students in Generation Z at the University of Rhode

Island. Student success will be defined in two parts: 1) retention to and/or completion of the

leadership minor after completing HDF 290, and 2) the achievement of relevant essential

learning outcomes within the course. Additionally, a secondary focus of this project will be to

compare Generation Z students with millennial students in the HDF 290 course to explore

generational differences in student success and better understand what is changing with the

incoming student population.

This data analysis explored the following questions: 1) How did students evaluate the

relevant essential and important learning objectives for the course in virtual and in-person
 16

sessions of HDF 290?, 2) How did millennial students compare to the Generation Z students of

their ratings of the relevant essential and important learning objectives?, 3) How did retention to

and graduation with the leadership minor change through the semesters of HDF 290?, and 4)

What trends are present in the enrollment numbers over the last 4 years?

Need for Assessment

The Center for Student Leadership Development (CSLD) at the University of Rhode

Island strives to provide students with developmental opportunities and prioritizes assessment of

their programs and services to do so. CLSD serves anywhere from 250 to 300 students every

year through the classes they teach. Therefore, staying on top of these assessments to ensure

robust, up-to-date leadership studies is essential to the functioning of this office. Currently,

CSLD has only reviewed surface-level trends in learning outcome assessment and never

reviewed enrollment data for HDF 290. As an introductory course for the leadership minor,

assessment of HDF 290 enrollment has the potential to provide important insights for CSLD

related to student progress toward the minor.

Procedure

This procedure section reviews the steps taken to acquire and analyze the two sets of data

used to answer the research questions. The data used in this analysis included data for the

population of students who enrolled in HDF 290 over the course of nine semesters that spanned

from fall 2016 through fall 2020. The span of time from which data were requested was dictated

by the availability of Individual Development Educational Assessment (IDEA) survey data.

IDEA survey data, collected by the University of Rhode Island, was acquired from CSLD for the

past nine semesters of students enrolled in HDF 290 sections, starting with fall 2016. The IDEA

survey asked students to assess specific learning outcomes for the course, comment on the
 17

curriculum, and provide feedback for the course instructors. The second set of data were

enrollment demographics from those same nine semesters. Before sharing findings from this

analysis, this section will explain the demographic data of the students in HDF 290, specifically

gender identity, class year, first-generation status, transfer status, generation based on birth year,

racial/ethnic identity, Talent Development enrollment, and Pell Grant status. Data regarding the

students’ status in the leadership minor will also be discussed following the enrollment

demographics. This section will also describe the analysis processes of coding learning outcomes

from the IDEA evaluations and employing descriptive statistics to explore students’ responses.

Enrollment Demographic Data

The enrollment data for HDF 290 was requested through the Enrollment Services office

at the University of Rhode Island in early January. The original data set included data from

spring 2014 to fall 2020 but was narrowed down based on the available IDEA assessment data.

After reviewing the original enrollment data in early February, information on retention to the

university and birthdates for the students were requested as an addition to the data. Finally,

information on students’ completion of the leadership minor was requested in early March when

it became apparent that data would be helpful toward addressing the research questions of this

project. The enrollment data was analyzed using multiple excel pivot tables, which analyzed the

relationships between various identifiers of students in HDF 290. For example, pivot tables made

it possible to efficiently and accurately summarize and group data based on gender identity, class

year, first-generation status, transfer status, generation based on birth year, racial/ethnic identity,

Talent Development enrollment, and Pell Grant status. The details of this analysis are described

in the findings section.

 18

Leadership Minor Retention. During data analysis, data was requested from Enrollment

Services related to the leadership minor at the University of Rhode Island. Specifically, data

about whether each student was identified as a leadership minor student during their semester in

HDF 290 and whether each student graduated with the leadership minor were merged with the

original dataset using the VLOOKUP function in Excel. The data was then reviewed using pivot

tables to summarize and group data based on class year, generation, leadership minor enrollment,

and graduation with the leadership minor. Those results are reviewed in the Findings section.

IDEA Data

The Individual Development Educational Assessment (IDEA) surveys are used by the

University of Rhode Island to evaluate specified learning outcomes for courses. Created by the

IDEA Center, this instrument allows instructors to identify learning outcomes prior to the start of

the course and label them as one of three categories: minor or no importance, important, or

essential. Instructors choose three to six outcomes out of twelve to thirteen total outcomes to be

labeled as either important or essential. Using the IDEA survey, students rate their learning of all

of the objectives and confidentially provide feedback to the instructors at the end of each term.

Access to the IDEA instrument was unavailable at the time of this data analysis since the

questions are presented to students through an online platform called Campus Labs. However,

instructors for HDF 290 located and shared reports beginning with the fall 2016 semester

through the fall 2020 semester. During December and January, HDF 290 instructors provided

digital copies of their section’s IDEA reports for review via a shared Google folder, as well as a

supplemental Google form assessment that was used in spring 2020.

Some semesters of this course had two sections while other semesters only had one.

Student feedback is confidential and the rosters for individual sections were unavailable for this
 19

data analysis, so sections were therefore combined and analyzed by semester. Response rates for

the IDEA evaluations at the end of each semester varied (see Table 1). Only the spring 2017

semester had a 100% response rate.

Table 1

IDEA Assessment Response Rates, Fall 2016 to Fall 2020

Term Enrollment Total Response Total Response %

Fall 2016 29 27 93.10%
Spring 2017 10 10 100.00%
Fall 2017 39 34 87.18%
Spring 2018 18 8 44.44%
Fall 2018 24 19 79.17%
Spring 2019 12 8 66.67%
Fall 2019 20 10 50.00%
Spring 2020* 21 N/A
Fall 2020 25 21 84.00%
*The IDEA evaluations were not required during the spring 2020 semester.

For the fall 2016, spring 2017, and fall 2017 semesters of HDF 290, there were four

essential learning outcomes and two important learning outcomes. For the spring 2018 to fall

2020 semesters, there were four essential learning outcomes and three important learning

outcomes for the course. It is essential to note the instrument structure and delivery changed

starting in 2018, and some of the outcomes changed in wording or new ones were added to the

options. Based on the general themes, each outcome was coded into one of the following

categories: content, application, communication, information literacy, knowledge synthesis,

personal value system, and ethics (see Table 2). Some outcomes changed during the switch to the

updated instrument while others did not. There was an additional outcome selected by the HDF

290 instructors starting in spring 2018 that has been coded into its own category – ethics – since
 20

there was no outcome from fall 2017 or prior that aligned with this added outcome. The spring

2020 semester is omitted from the IDEA evaluations because the University of Rhode Island did

not require them to be completed after the switch to remote learning as a response to the

COVID-19 pandemic. Instructors conducted a separate evaluation of learning and the student

experience for spring 2020. Use of results from the spring 2020 evaluation is explained in the

next section.

Table 2

Coded HDF 290 Learning Outcomes

Code Semesters Importance Rating Outcome

Fall 2016 to Learning fundamental principles,

Content Essential
Fall 2017 generalizations, or theories
Gaining a basic understanding of the
Spring 2018
Essential subject (e.g., factual knowledge, methods,
to Fall 2020
principles, generalizations, theories)
Learning to apply course material (to
Fall 2016 to
Application Essential improve thinking, problem solving, and
Fall 2017
decisions)
Learning to apply course material (to
Spring 2018
Essential improve thinking, problem solving, and
to Fall 2020
decisions)
Fall 2016 to Developing skill in expressing myself
Communication Essential
Fall 2017 orally or in writing

Spring 2018 Developing skill in expressing myself

Essential
to Fall 2020 orally or in writing
Learning how to find and use resources
Information Fall 2016 to
Important for answering questions or solving
Literacy Fall 2017
problems
Spring 2018 Learning how to find, evaluate, and use
Important
to Fall 2020 resources to explore a topic in-depth

Knowledge Fall 2016 to Learning to analyze and critically evaluate

Essential
Synthesis Fall 2017 ideas, arguments, and points of view
 21

Spring 2018 Learning to analyze and critically evaluate

Essential
to Fall 2020 ideas, arguments, and points of view
Acquiring an interest in learning more by
Personal Value Fall 2016 to
Important asking my own questions and seeking
System Fall 2017
answers
Spring 2018 Learning to apply knowledge and skills to
Important
to Fall 2020 benefit others or serve the public good

Spring 2018 Developing ethical reasoning and/or

Ethics* Important
to Fall 2020 ethical decision making
*Indicates a learning outcome that was added to course outcomes after change in instrument

When evaluating their learning on the instrument, students were asked to rate their

progress in the course on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = “No apparent progress”, 2 = “Slight progress”, 3 =

“Moderate progress”, 4 = “Substantial progress”, and 5 = “Exceptional progress”). The report

contains raw (unadjusted) and adjusted averages on this 5-point scale for the relevant learning

objectives and provides percentages of students who answered 1 or 2 and 4 or 5. According to

the IDEA report form, the adjusted averages are calculated by taking into account other items on

the survey, including: the student’s desire to take the course (regardless of who taught it), student

work habits, instructor reported class size, and two other multiple item measures (student effort

not attributable to the instructor and course difficulty not attributable to the instructor). Given

this information, and for the purposes of this data analysis, the raw unadjusted averages were

used to evaluate trends throughout the semester, as this analysis centered student-rated progress

on the learning outcomes. These trends are presented in the Findings section.

Spring 2020 Evaluation

With the switch to remote learning halfway through the spring 2020 semester due to the

COVID-19 pandemic, instructors at the University of Rhode Island were not required to utilize

the IDEA evaluation for their courses. The instructors for HDF 290 opted to use a Google form

to gather feedback from students that semester. The form, given to students in early May 2020,
 22

asked students to respond anonymously to a variety of questions relating to their experience in

the transition to remote learning; responses were not required by instructors (see Appendix B).

Out of the 21 students enrolled that semester, only four completed the form. Even though this

form has a small response rate, this information was important for CSLD to know when the

COVID-19 pandemic started. Student responses are described in the Findings section.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this data analysis project. Overall, one of the more

prominent limitations was that the data needed to be requested through third parties at the

University of Rhode Island, including Enrollment Services and instructors for HDF 290. Waiting

for responses for data or having to communicate back and forth with those third parties with

questions presented minor setbacks throughout the analysis process. The initial plan for this

project included data for the fall 2014 cohort of HDF 290. However, due to missing data with

IDEA assessments, the total semesters under review had to be lessened and fall 2016 became the

first semester of data used for this project. Additionally, being unable to separate the enrollment

demographic data by sections of HDF 290 in each semester was another setback that prompted

consolidation of the data. Lastly, the IDEA assessments had significant variations in response

rates throughout the semesters, and because responses were anonymous, it was impossible to tell

which responses came from millennial students and which responses came from Generation Z

students, especially in the earlier semesters with mixed generational groups.

Findings

This section will review the findings that emerged based on the research questions and

methods used to analyze the data. The research questions were: 1) How did students evaluate the

relevant essential and important learning objectives for the course in virtual and in-person
 23

sessions of HDF 290?, 2) How did millennial students compare to the Generation Z students of

their ratings of the relevant essential and important learning objectives?, 3) How did retention to

and graduation with the Leadership Minor change through the semesters of HDF 290?, and 4)

What trends are present in the enrollment numbers over the last 4 years?

Research Question 1: Student Evaluations on Learning Outcomes.

The University of Rhode Island has a target response rate of 65% (University of Rhode

Island, n.d.-b), and the majority of IDEA response rate were above this targeted goal, with only

one semester receiving a 100% response rate. Thus, overall, IDEA data included in this project

met the URI threshold. Looking at each of the coded outcomes, students generally self-reported

substantial progress in the outcomes in the past semesters of HDF 290 (see Appendix A).

Students, on average, felt most confident in their progress with the content, application, and

knowledge synthesis outcomes, all of which were labeled as essential outcomes on the IDEA

evaluations for this course. There was also significant progress in the personal value system

outcome. These areas are consistent with CAS (2019) Standards for student leadership programs,

which provide personal development, interpersonal development, and the foundations of

leadership through their services. Findings related to each outcome will be discussed below.

Content.

The first set of outcomes in the category of content were considered essential outcomes

by HDF 290 instructors. Content outcomes referred to learning fundamental knowledge of

theories and principles of the subject matter. In spring 2018, only 50% of responding students

rated a 4 or 5, while 13% rated a 1 or 2 and the remainder rated a 3 for content, resulting in the

lowest average of 3.9. Then, in fall 2020, 79% of responding students rated a 4 or 5 while the

remainder rated a 3, resulting in an average of 4.3. For all other semesters, excluding spring
 24

2020, 100% of responding students rated a 4 or 5 for their progress in content, resulting in

averages ranging from 4.4 to 4.85 depending on the distribution of responses. Overall, students

rated their progress on content outcomes consistently with substantial or exceptional progress.

Also, student ratings of the content category of outcomes increased over time. Content had an

average rating of 4.56 over the eight semesters.

Application.

The application category of outcomes was also labeled as essential and included

outcomes related to applying course material in thinking, problem solving, and decision making.

In fall 2016, 97% of responding students rated themselves a 4 or 5 while 3% rated a 3, for an

average of 4.8. In spring 2017, 90% of responding students rate a 4 or 5 and 10% rate a 3 for an

average of 4.7. In fall 2017, 91% of responding students rated their progress with a 4 or 5 while 3

% rated 1 or 2, and the remainder rated a 3 for an average of 4.7. Spring 2018 had only 75% of

responding students rate their progress with a 4 or 5, while 13% rated a 1 or 2 and the remainder

rated a 3 for an average of 4.3. 95% of responding students in fall 2018 rated their progress with

a 4 or 5 and the remaining students rated a 3 for an average of 4.8. One hundred percent of

responding students in both spring 2019 and fall 2019 rated their application progress with a 4 or

5; both semesters had an average of 4.7. Finally, in Fall 2020, 83% of responding students rated

their application progress with a 4 or 5 while 4.5% rated a 1 or 2, and the rest rated a 3, for an

average of 4.45. Students generally perceived their progress as substantial or exceptional for

application. Over the eight semesters of IDEA data, this outcome had a 4.64 average.

Communication.

The third set of outcomes, communication, was also labeled as essential. This category

included outcomes related to developing written and oral communication skills. In fall 2016,
 25

pring 2017, and fall 2017, 100% of responding students rated their progress on the

communication outcome a 4 or 5, for an average of 4.85, 4.7, and 4.7 respectively. Spring 2018

saw a dip in that progress, with 75% of responding students rating their progress a 4 or 5, and

25% of responding students rating a 1 or 2 for an average of 4. In fall 2018, 89% of responding

students rated their progress a 4 or 5 and the rest rated a 3 for an average of 4.7. In spring 2019,

100% of responding students rated a 4 or 5 for the communication outcome, resulting in an

average of 4.6. Fall 2019 had 90% of responding students rate a 4 or 5 while the rest rated a 3,

for an average of 4.6. Finally, only 68% of responding students in fall 2020 rated a 4 or 5, 15.5%

of responding students rated a 1 or 2, and the remainder rated a 3, resulting in an average of 4.

The communication outcomes had, over eight semesters, an average of 4.52, demonstrating self-

reported substantial progress.

Information Literacy.

The fourth set of outcomes, information literacy, was labeled as important for HDF 290,

and related to the process of finding and evaluating resources to use for problem solving or

research. In fall 2016, 96.5% of responding students rated their progress with a 4 or 5, while

3.5% of responding students rated their progress with a 1 or a 2, resulting in an average of 4.6. In

spring 2017, 90% of responding students rated their progress with a 4 or 5, while 10% rated a 3,

resulting in an average of 4.5. In fall 2017, 88% of responding students rated their progress with

a 4 or 5 and the rest rated a 3, for an average of 4.45. Spring 2018 saw a drop in this outcome,

with 63% rating their progress with a 4 or 5, 25% of responding students rating a 1 or 2, and the

remainder rating a 3 for an average of 3.9. Fall 2018 has 95% of responding students rate their

progress with a 4 or 5, and the remaining responses rate a 3 for an average of 4.7. In spring 2019,

86% of responding students rated their progress with a 4 or 5 while the remainder rated a 3,
 26

resulting in an average of 4.4. Similarly, in fall 2019, 90% of responding students rated a 4 or 5

and the rest rated a 3, again for an average of 4.4. Lastly, in fall 2020, 72.5% rated their progress

on this outcome with a 4 or 5, 6.5% rated a 1 or 2, and the remainder rated a 3, for an average of

4.3. With an overall average of 4.41, information literacy was the lowest-rated category of

outcomes, but still highlighted significant progress in this area for students in HDF 290.

Knowledge Synthesis.

The fifth set of outcomes, knowledge synthesis, was labeled as essential to the course by

instructors and involved learning how to critically evaluate and analyze arguments, ideas, and

points of view. One hundred percent of responding students in fall 2016 rated their progress on

this outcome with a 4 or 5, for an average of 4.8. In spring 2017, 90% of responding students

rated their progress with a 4 or 5 while the rest rated a 3 for an average of 4.6. In fall 2017, 94%

rated a 4 or 5 and the rest rated a 3 for an average of 4.7. Only 63% of responding students in

spring 2018 rated their progress a 4 or 5, 25% rated a 1 or 2, and the rest rated a 3, resulting in an

average of 3.9. Ninety-five percent of responding students in Fall 2018 rated their progress a 4 or

5 and the rest rated a 3 for an average of 4.8. In spring 2019 and fall 2019, 100% of responding

students rated a 4 or 5, for averages of 4.4 and 4.8 respectively. Finally, in fall 2020, 78.5% of

responding students rated their progress on this outcome with a 4 or 5 while the rest rated a 3,

resulting in an average of 4.3. Overall, students reported substantial progress in the knowledge

synthesis outcomes, with an average across semesters of 4.54.

Personal Value System.

The sixth set of outcomes, personal value system, was labeled as important. This category

of outcomes related to asking questions, seeking answers, and applying knowledge to serve

others. In fall 2016, 96% of responding students rated their progress on this outcome with a 4 or
 27

5 and the remainder rated a 3 for an average of 4.7. Seventy percent of responding students in

Spring 2017 rated a 4 or 5 while the rest rated a 3 for an average of 4.2. In fall 2017, 91% rated a

4 or 5, 3% rated a 1 or 2, and the rest rated a 3, resulting in an average of 4.55. In spring 2018,

75% of responding students rated a 4 or 5, 13% rated a 1 or 2, and the rest rated a 3 for an

average of 4.3. In Fall 2018, 95% of responding students rated a 4 or 5 and the remainder rated a

3, resulting in an average of 4.7. In spring 2019 and fall 2019, 100% of responding students rated

their progress in this outcome a 4 or 5 for averages of 4.9 and 4.7 respectively. Sixty-eight

percent of responding students in Fall 2020 rated a 4 or 5 for their progress, 9% rated a 1 or 2,

and the remainder rated a 3, for an average of 4.1. For the personal value system outcomes,

students overall had an average rating of 4.52, demonstrating substantial progress.

Ethics.

The seventh outcome, ethics, was labeled as important. This outcome was added to the

IDEA course outcomes in spring 2018 and covered the development of ethical reasoning and

ethical decision-making skills. Sixty-three percent of responding students in spring 2018 rated

their progress on this outcome with a 4 or 5, 25% rated a 1 or 2, and the remainder rated a 3 for

an average of 3.9. In fall 2018, 95% rated their progress a 4 or 5, while the rest rated a 3, for an

average of 4.6. In spring 2019, 100% of responding students rated their progress with a 4 or 5,

resulting in an average of 4.6. Ninety percent of responding students rated a 4 or 5 while the rest

rated a 3 for an average of 4.6. Finally, in fall 2020, 83% of responding students rated a 4 or 5

while the rest rated a 3, resulting in an average of 4.45. In the five semesters that progress on this

outcome was measured, students self-reported significant progress, with an average rating of

4.43.

Spring 2020 Evaluation Findings.

 28

When asked about strategies that worked well during the switch to remote learning, one

student indicated that, “The use of google docs was a really fun engaging way of getting

everyone [involved].” Another student wrote that they enjoyed using Google Docs for group

assignments “because it was the closest we can get to writing on the board.” On the other hand,

when asked what did not work well, the four responders had relatively similar thoughts to each

other. Overall, there was nothing they could identify that did not work well with the switch.

Some of the specific aspects of the course that helped students succeed were constant

communication from professors, both via email and in virtual classroom spaces, and being able

to re-watch recorded lectures. To be more successful in the course, one student responded that

they would have liked to spend “more time going over graded projects” and another student

wanted specific examples of what the instructors were looking for from their assignments. The

students’ positive experience with the use of technology is consistent with literature about the

need to effectively integrate technology into the classroom for virtual engagement (Confrey,

2016), which was something crucial for the spring 2020 semester.

Spring 2020 students were asked about the strategies they would advise students to use to

be successful in remote learning environments. One student advised others, “…don’t be hesitant

to email with questions or use office hours.” Another suggested to “attend as many classes in

person as possible, and if not rewatch the recordings.” A third student suggested again to “take

advantage of the live classes via Webex and ask questions! You won’t get the answers you need

unless you ask.” The final student said to “always check [the learning management system] and

email.” The students suggested to instructors that they continue to use the Google docs for class

activities and continue to record lectures for students who might miss a day of class.
 29

On a scale of 1 to 5, three students rated their satisfaction with the adaption of HDF 290

from face-to-face to remote instruction with a 5, and one student with a 4. On a scale of 1 to 5,

two students rated their satisfaction with the information provided during HDF 290’s transition

with a 4, and two students with a 5. When asked to rate their satisfaction with their ability to

meet course learning outcomes in the remote learning environment on a scale of 1 to 5, three

students rated their satisfaction with a 5, and one student with a 4. When asked to rate their

satisfaction with their ability to interact with other students in the course on a scale of 1 to 5, two

students rated a 4, one student rated a 3, and one student rated a 2. Finally, when asked to rate

their satisfaction with their ability to interact with the instructors in the course on a scale of 1 to

5, two students rated a 5, one student rated a 4, and one student rated a 3. These findings

demonstrate that students struggled most with creating connections to peers in the virtual

learning environment, and—to a lesser degree—with the course instructor. Per the literature,

while they are comfortable and satisfied with using technology to do assignments in class,

Generation Z desires social learning and creating connections with their peers and instructors

(Seemiller & Grace, 2016), which is consistent with the findings from spring 2020.

Research Question 2: Millennial Responses versus Generation Z Responses

While there were no semesters reviewed of only millennial students, the Generation Z

students in spring 2019, fall 2019, and fall 2020 semesters reported about the same progress as

students in earlier semesters that had partial millennial enrollment. Two of the lowest response

rates were from spring 2019 and fall 2019, both completely Generation Z.

Student-rated progress on the information literacy outcome, which covers finding,

evaluating, and using resources to explore questions and topics, dropped in the Generation Z

semesters. This is consistent with literature suggesting that members of Generation Z may need
 30

more emphasis on finding credible sources given the age of technology they grew up in (Rue,

2018). Additionally, Generation Z students in the later semesters rated their progress on

application outcomes as significant. The work the students and instructors are doing in HDF 290

in terms of applying course content in thinking, problem solving, and decision making aligns

with how Generation Z defines leadership, which involves learning skills transferable to their

careers, strengths-based leadership, and understanding the nuances of leadership (Seemiller &

Grace, 2016). Research about Generation Z also indicates their priorities lie with engaging in

social activism, wanting to give back to others, and getting a return on their investment into their

education (Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Johnson & Sveen, 2020). Those priorities are consistent

with some of the measured learning outcomes for the course, such as the personal value system,

application, communication, and knowledge synthesis. It is also represented in the retention to

the leadership minor, as discussed with the next research question.

Research Question 3: Retention to and Graduation with the Leadership Minor

During the semester they enrolled in HDF 290, only seven students out of the total 198

students had formalized their track in the leadership minor – three in fall 2016, three in fall 2019,

and one in fall 2020. Fifty-six students of the 198 students who enrolled in HDF 290 since fall

2016 have gone on to graduate with the leadership minor (see Table 3). It should be noted that

not all students listed in the enrollment data have graduated as of the time of this data analysis

project, so the number of graduated leadership minor students is generally lower for first-year

students and the later semesters. All seven of the students who already declared their leadership

minor while they were in HDF 290 were seniors during the course; four were members of

Generation Z. Of the 56 students to graduate with the leadership minor, 42 of those students were

members of Generation Z (see Table 4).

 31

Table 3

Count of Students that Graduated with Leadership Minor After Taking HDF 290

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall

2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020
First Years Total 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1
Minor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Minor 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1
Sophomores Total 17 4 26 11 19 8 11 12 15
Minor 10 2 11 4 3 0 0 0 0
No Minor 7 2 15 7 16 8 11 12 15
Juniors Total 7 3 5 5 4 4 2 9 8
Minor 3 2 5 0 2 1 0 0 0
No Minor 4 1 0 5 2 3 2 9 8
Seniors Total 4 3 5 2 0 0 6 0 1
Minor 4 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 1
No Minor 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0
*Class year is based on what level the students were at when they enrolled in HDF 290

Table 4

Graduation with Leadership Minor Based on Generation

Graduated without Minor Graduated with Minor Total

Millennial 20 14 34
Generation Z 122 42 164
Total 142 56

Research Question 4: Trends in Enrollment

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data available in the data sets.

A total of 198 students have enrolled in HDF 290 since fall 2016. Of those 198 students, 70

identified as male and 128 identified as female. When considering class level during the semester
 32

each student was enrolled in HDF 290, 10.61% of students were seniors, 23.74% of students

were juniors, 62.12% of students were sophomores, and 3.54% of students were first-year

students. Additionally, of the 198 students previously enrolled in HDF 290, 80 students were

first-generation college students, 112 were not first-generation college students, and 6 did not

specify. According to the data collected, only three students out of the total 198 were transfer

students. All three transfer students were sophomores, and all three took HDF 290 during a fall

semester. Using the designated cut-off for the millennial generation members versus Generation

Z members (i.e., millennials were born before 1997; Dimmock, 2019) there were a total of 34

millennial students and 164 Gen Z students who have enrolled in HDF 290 (see Table 5).

Table 5

Millennial versus Generation Z Enrollment in HDF 290, Fall 2016 to Fall 2020

Total Enrollment # of Millennial Students # of Gen Z Students

Term # # % # %
Fall 2016 29 18 62.07% 11 37.93%
Spring 2017 20 3 15.00% 17 85.00%
Fall 2017 39 7 17.95% 32 82.05%
Spring 2018 18 5 27.78% 13 72.22%
Fall 2018 24 1 4.17% 23 95.83%
Spring 2019 12 0 0.00% 12 100%
Fall 2019 20 0 0.00% 20 100%
Spring 2020 21 0 0.00% 21 100%
Fall 2020 25 0 0.00% 25 100%
Total 198 34 17.17% 164 82.83%

Additional demographic data was summarized for this project. White students comprised

66.16% of students enrolled in HDF 290, 12.63% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 11.11%

 33

identified as Black/African American, 2.53% identified as Asian, 4.04% identified with 2 or

more races, and 3.54% did not specify their racial/ethnic identity. Of the students enrolled in

HDF 290, 36% were Talent Development (TD) scholars. The TD program is a special URI

admissions program for students of color and those from disadvantaged backgrounds (University

of Rhode Island, n.d.-c). A total of 74 students throughout the last nine semesters received a Pell

Grant. The Pell Grant program awards financial aid typically to low-income students who need

help paying for their college education. Additionally, following their enrollment in HDF 290,

194 students persisted to the next semester of their college experience. Of the remaining four

students who were not retained to the next semester, one was a senior who graduated from the

University, and therefore did not enroll in courses after taking HDF 290; two of the other

students were sophomores and the last was a first-year student.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this data analysis, the following section will review some

recommendations for the Center for Student Leadership Development and for future research in

this area. Overall, CSLD and the instructors for HDF 290 should continue their methods of

content delivery and teaching that is being provided to students in the HDF 290 course. There is

clearly demonstrated student progress on learning outcomes according to students self-reported

ratings via course evaluations. Their progress and outcomes are concurrent with literature about

the services that student leadership programs provide to students. For example, personal

development and foundations of leadership (CAS, 2019) are hallmarks of student leadership

development. According to their high ratings of their progress in the categories of content,

application, and knowledge synthesis, this project identified that students gained knowledge in

the leadership theories and the ability to apply that knowledge to problem solving.
 34

The characteristics and priorities of Generation Z students, such as engaging in social

activism and getting a return on their investment into education (Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Johnson

& Sveen, 2020) also came through in this analysis. HDF 290 students reported substantial progress

in the personal value system outcomes, which related to developing an interest in learning more

and applying their knowledge to serve others. To continue that work and to get an even clearer

picture of students’ progress in the course, a second recommendation is to prioritize time during

class sessions for students to complete their IDEA responses. The response rate has varied each

semester, and while it has been consistently over the URI goal of 65%, the most recent semesters

had anywhere from 50% to 84% in their response rate. Providing dedicated time during class will

allow instructors to receive as much information as possible from students and better evaluate the

success of the semester.

Given the few transfer students enrolled in HDF 290, it is also recommended that CSLD

consider how to promote course opportunities to transfer students. HDF 290 is the introductory

course for the Leadership Minor for non-first year students, and it is offered in the fall and spring

for sophomores and juniors who were unable to take HDF 190 their first year at URI. While it

was not analyzed in this project, spring 2021 was the first semester that HDF 190 enrolled a

number of transfer students that were non-first years. It may be useful to look at HDF 190 and

HDF 290 combined to determine the total transfer students in both courses and combine efforts

to recruit transfer students to each of these introductory courses. Transfer students have been

found to experience increased success at higher education institutions following their

participation in service-learning courses (York & Fernandez, 2018), and transfer students at URI

may find similar benefit in service-learning and community involvement contexts of student

leadership programs, like HDF 290.

 35

Finally, a fourth recommendation is to adapt the spring 2020 evaluation for use in future

semesters of HDF 290. Asking targeted questions about virtual learning provided insight into

how the students experienced the switch and what worked or did not work for them that

semester. Replicating that type of targeted questioning in addition to the use of the IDEA

instrument could add more depth to the data that instructors receive at the end of each semester.

Given some of the limitations for this project, there are also considerations for future

research in this area. The first consideration for future assessment is to continue previous efforts

by CSLD to identify or develop a tracking system for students who are working towards the

leadership minor. For this project, access to this data was limited to include students with the

minor designation during their time in HDF 290 or to students who graduated with the minor.

However, there are likely students in between those points in time that are making progress on

the minor and started with or completed HDF 290 at some point during their time at URI. As the

process stands now, students typically declare their minor during the fall of their senior year for

transcripts and are then coded in eCampus, the student database for URI. Continuing previous

efforts to develop a code for aspiring leadership minor or in progress leadership minor students

may provide CSLD with additional data about students’ progress toward the minor and

enrollment data for HDF 290 and HDF 190 (the introductory course for first-year students).

A second consideration for future research in this area would be to compare semesters of

HDF 290 with 100% millennial students and 100% Generation Z students to evaluate and

explore whether there truly may be generational differences in leadership education.

Additionally, a third consideration for future research is to dive deeper into the experiences of

Generation Z students and decisions made by CSLD related to the HDF 290 curriculum. For

example, an exploration of the teaching methods and tools that are used in the classroom might
 36

lead to a better understanding of how Generation Z students engage with CSLD leadership

course content. With more literature available about the experiences of Generation Z students

and the likely future of hybrid learning, better understanding of the specific teaching methods

used to deliver content and the ways current students are engaging may also provide more

insights into exactly what course and curriculum choices are leading to student-rated success on

the learning outcomes for HDF 290.

Conclusion

The purpose of this project was to explore generational differences in learning outcome

responses and enrollment data for an introductory leadership course in order to identify how

student leadership program staff can better support the next generation of leaders. As the Center

for Student Leadership Development has never looked in depth to the learning outcome

evaluations of the HDF 290 course, this data analysis provided useful insight and support for

future plans to improve the class overall and serve Generation Z students.

Students demonstrated significant progress in their understanding of leadership theories

and ability to apply knowledge to decision making and problem solving. More specifically,

Generation Z students showed significant progress in the personal value system outcome,

relating to their ability to use what they learn in class to serve the public good. Social activism is

a major characteristic of Generation Z (Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Johnson & Sveen, 2020) and

this study revealed URI students engaged with CSLD have made progress towards serving the

public through leadership content learned in HDF 290. This study also re-enforced the need for

continuing efforts to track students’ progress through the leadership minor as there were small or

limited numbers on those who had declared the minor.

 37

The combination of these findings suggests a need for more consistent evaluation of

learning outcomes and enrollment for this course and others within the leadership minor. Student

leadership programs strive to provide personal development to undergraduate students through a

variety of services, and curricular courses are an integral part of the Center for Student

Leadership Development. HDF 290 is a strong course, demonstrated by the consistently high

student-rated progress on learning outcomes from both millennial and Generation Z students, and

is well situated to continue developing the future generation of student leaders.

 38

References

Center for Student Leadership Development. (n.d.) Center for student leadership development:

About the CSLD. https://web.uri.edu/leadership/about/

Conefrey, T. (2016). Technology in the college classroom: Crisis and opportunity. Educational

Technology, 56(4), 37-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430476

Council for the Advancement of Student Affairs. (2019). Student leadership programs. CAS

Professional Standards for Higher Education, (10th ed.)

Deal, S. T., & Yarborough, P. (2020). Higher education student leadership development: 5 keys

to success. Center for Creative Leadership.

Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where millennial end and Generation Z

begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennial-end-and-

generation-z-begins/.

Johnson, D. B. & Sveen, L. W. (2020). Three key values of Generation Z: Equitably serving the

next generation of students. College and University, 95(1), 37-40.

Rue, P. (2018). Make way, millennials, here comes Gen Z. About Campus, 23(3), 5-12.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1086482218804251

Parker, K., & Igielnik, R. (2020, May 14). On the cusp of adulthood and facing uncertain future:

What we know about Gen Z so far. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-

trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-

know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.

University of Rhode Island. (n.d.-a) 2020-2021 online catalog: Search for course descriptions.

https://web.uri.edu/catalog/course-descriptions/
 39

University of Rhode Island. (n.d.-b). IDEA student feedback checklist.

https://web.uri.edu/teach/student-feedback-checklist/

University of Rhode Island. (n.d.-c). About – Talent Development.

https://web.uri.edu/talentdevelopment/about/

York, T. T., & Fernandez, F. (2018) The positive effects of service-learning on transfer students’

sense of belonging: A multi-institutional analysis. Journal of College Student

Development, 59(5), pp. 579-597. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0054

 40

Appendix A: Averages of Student-Rated Progress on Learning Outcomes, Fall 2016 to Fall 2020

Bar Graph
 41

Appendix B: Spring 2020 Google Form Questions

HDF 290 Transition to Remote Learning: Spring 2020 Student Survey

The COVID-19 outbreak has created many challenges for you, your family, and the University of
Rhode Island community. Thank you for the effort you put into adapting to remote instruction
during such a difficult time. As the semester concludes, I would appreciate hearing about your
personal experience in this course so that we can better understand what worked, what did not, and
how to improve. Your end-of-semester feedback will also help us to maximize this type of
academic experience for students in the future.

There are no penalties if you decide not to participate or if you choose to skip questions. Your
responses will be used for planning purposes only and will remain confidential and anonymous.
There will be no student identifiers and results will be used by us in the aggregate only. The survey
should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Thank you.

1. What strategies or approaches (e.g., panels, use of Webex chat, use of Sakai forums, live use of
Google docs, recorded classes, etc.) did we use during the remote learning phase of this course
that worked well? Why do you think they were effective?

2. What strategies or approaches (e.g., panels, use of Webex chat, use of Sakai forums, live use of
Google docs, recorded classes, etc.) did we use during the remote learning phase of this course
that did not work well? Why do you think they were not effective?

3. What specific aspects of the course helped you succeed in the remote learning environment?
Please explain.

4. What additional assistance would have helped you be more successful in the remote learning
environment? Please explain.

5. What strategies would you advise students to use to be successful in the remote learning
environment? Please explain.

6. Please share any additional comments about how your experience with remote learning could
have been improved.

7. Which changes to this course introduced during the transition to remote learning would you
recommend the instructor(s) continue to use in future semesters? Please explain.

8. How satisfied were you with the adaption of HDF 290 from face-to-face to remote instruction
overall?

Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied

 42

9. How satisfied were you with information provided during HDF 290’s transition to the remote
learning environment?

Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied

10. Since the move to remote instruction, how satisfied were you with your ability to meet the
course learning outcomes (as indicated in your syllabus) in the remote learning environment?

Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied

11. Since the move to remote instruction, how satisfied were you with your ability to interact with
other students in this course?

Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied

12. Since the move to remote instruction, how satisfied were you with your ability to interact with
the course instructors?

Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied

13. Since the move to remote instruction, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements:

Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Does not apply

• The online course layout was easy to navigate

• The online course layout was consistent throughout the days and weeks
• Expectations for class participation were clearly stated
• I understood how I was being graded in this class
• The number of online tools I was asked to use was manageable
• Times for completing activities/projects was adequate
• Times for completing assignments was adequate
• Instructions for completing activities, assignments, etc. were clearly stated

13. Since the move to remote instruction, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements:

Very easy | Easy | Neither easy nor difficult | Difficult | Very difficult | Does not apply

• Time management
• Getting help with completing assignments
• Adjusting to remote instruction
• Balancing work and school responsibilities
• Having reliable access to the Internet (via Wi-Fi or Ethernet)
• Having reliable access to a functioning computer, laptop, or other similar device
• Finding quiet space for completing coursework