Faculty Perspectives
1
Running Head: PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING IN THE FIRST-YEAR PROGRAM
PARTICIPATING FACULTY PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING IN THE FIRST-YEAR
EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
A Research Paper
Presented to
The Faculty of College of Education
San José State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Plan B
By Ashley A. Raggio
August 2004
Faculty Perspectives
Table of Contents
Abstract
3
Chapter I: Introduction
5
Chapter II: Review of Literature and Analytical Framework
10
Chapter III: Methodology
17
Chapter IV: Findings
23
Chapter V: Conclusions
36
Chapter VI: Recommendations
43
Chapter VII: Lessons Learned
44
___________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A: Participant Survey
46
Appendix B: Focus Group Guiding Questions
47
Appendix C: Focus Group: Definition of Terms
48
Appendix D: Invitation to Participate
49
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form
50
Appendix F: Research Description
52
References
53
2
Faculty Perspectives
3
Abstract
This study examined the perspectives of faculty who participated in the MUSE
(Metropolitan University Scholars Experience) FYE (first-year experience) program at San José
Sate University (SJSU) based on research that demonstrated the personal, professional, and
political effects of teaching in an FYE program. The problem was that the MUSE program did
not have any structured data on participating faculty perspectives on teaching in the program and
whether the faculty perceived themselves and the program as effective in achieving its goals.
The purpose of this case study was to explore and understand participating faculty perspectives
on teaching in the first-year experience program at San José State University. In order to
understand the participating faculty perspectives, the researcher asked the following research
questions:
1. What are the benefits of teaching in the MUSE program?
2. What are the challenges of teaching in the MUSE program?
3. How do MUSE faculty describe their experience in achieving the MUSE goals?
Current and former faculty members participated in focus group discussions on the benefits and
challenges of teaching in the FYE program, and how they felt about being a part of MUSE.
By conducting this study, the researcher found that the primary benefits of participating
in the MUSE program were the relationships he/she was able to create with other faculty and
with his/her first-year students as well as the professional development experience. The
challenges of participating in the MUSE program included the lack of preparedness of incoming
students, political activity surrounding the program, and heavy workload issues. When
describing their experience in achieving the MUSE goals, the participating faculty expressed
some frustration and were inconsistent in their approaches. However, the participants were
Faculty Perspectives
overwhelmingly positive about the personal interest they had in the program’s purpose and the
intrinsic benefits it provided.
4
Faculty Perspectives
5
Chapter I
Introduction
Importance of the Study
San José State University (SJSU) has instituted a first-year-experience program called the
Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience (MUSE) Program. According to the Program
Director, the program goals are to teach students what it means to be a university scholar and
what it means to be part of a metropolitan university. The purpose of MUSE is to increase
retention and graduation rates. The goals are measured as providing assistance with finding and
using campus resources, improving scholarly research and critical thinking skills, managing
time, selecting a major, and exploring aspects of campus life such as cultural or athletic events.
The problem was that the MUSE program did not have any structured data on participating
faculty perspectives on teaching in the program and whether the faculty perceived themselves
and the program as effective in achieving its goals.
Little research has been done on faculty involved in first-year experience programs, and
the research that does exist focuses primarily on the pedagogical approaches faculty use with
freshmen, and the effect these pedagogies have on how faculty approach teaching courses within
his or her specific discipline (Barefoot, Warnock, Dickinson, Richardson, & Roberts, 1998).
However, according to student development theorists Astin (1993) and Tinto (1996), student
interactions with faculty play a key role in college student’s persistence, and there is increasing
evidence that faculty need to understand the unique needs of the first-year students at the
institution that they teach in (Pacheco, 1994).
The lack of data on the faculty experience in first-year experience (FYE) programs
creates a void for those who wish to develop and improve the quality of FYE programs.
Faculty Perspectives
6
Understanding the MUSE faculty perspectives on teaching in the program and how they perceive
the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals may provide valuable information to the
MUSE leadership in the areas of faculty development, support, recruitment, retention, program
structure and achieving the program goals.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to explore and understand participating faculty
perspectives on teaching in the first-year experience program at San José State University.
Insights from this study could provide valuable information for making decisions regarding
faculty development and involvement in the program. The general research questions for this
study are:
1. What are the benefits and challenges of teaching in the MUSE program?
2. How do MUSE faculty describe their experience in the program?
The Research Setting
San José State University, located in California’s Silicon Valley, created the MUSE
program to assist its new students in the transition from high school to college. The idea for the
MUSE Program came from the University’s Provost in 1999, and was put into action by a group
of interested faculty and staff. At the time this study was conducted the program was directed by
a tenured faculty member, and supported by one Graduate Assistant and one Student Assistant.
MUSE seminars were first offered in the fall of 2002. Each seminar had a limited
enrollment of 15 students to facilitate active learning, discussion, and create a safe environment
for students to be open with each other. Each faculty member chose a topic he or she was
interested in and passionate about. Anecdotally, feedback has been more positive during 20032004 because the registration process was adapted to allow students to choose the courses they
Faculty Perspectives
7
wanted to take rather than being placed in courses by advisors. This was a critical development
for the MUSE program because students’ interest in the topic was a key component in their level
of engagement in the seminar.
The MUSE seminars can satisfy a general education requirement in addition to teaching
students the skills necessary to succeed at the university. The content of MUSE seminars is
focused on current and unique topics, which attracts curious students and makes the MUSE
curriculum different from other FYE programs. First time MUSE faculty members are required
to attend an orientation session on teaching first-year students and how to achieve the goals of
the program. The new faculty orientations were weekend long retreats in 2002 and 2003, but due
to limited resources the 2004 orientation was held on campus over a one day period.
In addition to the orientation for new faculty in the MUSE program, each faculty member
must participate in smaller Peer Review Groups (PRG) when developing his or her course
syllabus to ensure that the seminar meets the general education guidelines of the university as
well as the goals of the MUSE program. MUSE faculty and program staff come together
periodically during the academic year for faculty development opportunities, MUSE events such
as the Provost’s address to students, or social gatherings celebrating MUSE achievements.
MUSE also collaborates with the university’s Peer Mentor Program, which was
established as part of the MUSE initiative. Peer Mentors assist in most seminars and provide
mentorship services on campus at the Peer Mentor Center. In addition to the seminars and the
support of the Peer Mentors, MUSE students are required to attend a minimum of two workshops
that are specifically designed for the program. Workshops cover topics such as effective writing,
leadership development, test taking skills, and intimate partner violence.
Faculty Perspectives
8
In the beginning of its third year, the MUSE program was heavily scrutinized by college
administrators who were being asked to support it during a significant budget crisis. Due to the
lack of support from some of the colleges, the program was only able offer 51 seminars during
the fall of 2004 (compared to 65 in fall 2003). Limited resources and lack of support increased
the importance of assessing the program in order to provide evidence whether MUSE is
achieving its goals as an FYE program. A continuous and thorough assessment process would
be challenging to create because of limited resources and program staff.
Definition of Terms
1. First-Year Experience (FYE) Program- a program at an institution of higher education
specifically designed to meet the needs of first-year students. These programs can be
curricular or co-curricular.
2. IHE- Institutions of Higher Education.
3. Metropolitan University- An institution that serves surrounding communities, their
diverse and expanding populations, their connecting technological corridors, and their
international partners (The Office of University Analysis and Planning Support,
University of Central Florida, 2004).
4. MUSE- Metropolitan University Scholar’s Experience.
5. PRG- Peer Review Group.
6. RTP- Retention Tenure and Promotion.
7. Scholarship- Knowledge resulting from study and research in a particular field (The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2000).
8. Seminar- A course with a small number of students. MUSE seminars have an average of
seventeen students per class.
Faculty Perspectives
9
9. SJSU- San José State University.
Organization of the Study
Described in Chapter One is the importance of the study, the purpose of the study,
general research questions, the research setting, and the definition of terms used throughout the
study. In Chapter Two, the researcher reviews the literature on FYE programs, faculty
participating in FYE programs, and organizational politics in IHE’s. The researcher also
discusses the analytical framework, research questions, assumptions and limitations of the study.
In Chapter Three an overview of the methodology and design of the study is provided. The
findings and summary of the study are discussed in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five the researcher
lists the conclusions, and in Chapter Six recommendations for future program development and
research is provided. The study concludes with the lessons the researcher learned in Chapter
Seven.
Faculty Perspectives 10
Chapter II
Review of the Literature
FYE Programs: Student Development and Retention Theory
Prominent Theories. According to Tinto (1993) and Gardner (1986), educators today
understand the importance of engaging students in their education during their first year to
improve student persistence. Student development theorists such as Astin (1993) discuss the
profound social and academic transitions that incoming students experience. Astin also
emphasizes the importance of creating relationships with peers, relationships with faculty, and
co-curricular involvement to increase student retention from a current average of 25%. Upcraft
and Gardner (1989) note that “deliberate attention helps students in their first year learn such
things as developing academic and intellectual competence and gaining a sense of their identity”.
(p. 42) Other theories offer insight into pedagogies to assist with student development.
Schroeder (2003) discusses how Sanford’s theory of challenge and support provides a framework
to balance the instructor’s role in the classroom so that the students get the maximum benefit
from the FYE seminar. Research promotes the importance of a quality student-faculty
relationship both in and out of the classroom to promote student academic integration and
persistence (Gordon & Grites, 1984; Kuh, Schuh, & Whitt, 1991; Thomas, 1990).
Theories Applying to FYE Programs at Metropolitan Universities. To create
effective programming, institutions must explore student attitudes on the social and academic
experiences that are unique to that specific institution (Tinto, 1996). Specifically, metropolitan
universities are becoming increasingly diverse (Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle,
D.K., & Robertson, B.E., 2002). Pacheco (1994) defines five major categories of students at
metropolitan universities: commuters, students who work part-time, work full-time, first-
Faculty Perspectives 11
generation to attend college, ethnic minority, and working class. The issues presented for these
students include transportation issues, multiple life roles, integrating support systems, and
developing a sense of belonging (Jacoby, 1995). Faculty in the FYE program can facilitate the
creation of a sense of community for first-year students by understanding and acting upon the
issues that urban students commonly face.
The Effects of Teaching in an FYE Program
Limited research has been done on faculty involved in FYE programs. The majority of
research in this area has been on the tendency of FYE faculty to transfer the teaching skills
learned in the first-year seminars into his or her departmental courses (Barefoot, Warnock,
Dickinson, Richardson, & Roberts, 1998). Research done in 2002 by Wanca-Thibault,
Shepherd, and Staley at the University of Colorado- Colorado Springs found that the effects on
faculty who participate in first-year seminars can be categorized into professional, political, and
personal effects. Each category presented both positive effects and challenges for faculty
members. Factors listed included improved teaching skills, overwhelming time commitment,
and relationship building (Wanca-Thibault et al., 2002).
Organization Politics Within Institutions of Higher Education
Institutions of higher education are complex, ever changing, and are dependent upon
unique institutional characteristics such as history, culture, and size (Barr & Associates, 1993).
Diffuse organizational goals, uncertainty of means, dual control, and complicated structures of
governance and personnel foster a uniquely political culture. When normal processes are lacking
direction, resources are scarce, or groups are largely interdependent, and political activities are
accentuated (Moore, 1993). The environment described by Barr and Associates makes
relationships difficult, yet essential. Participation in institutional programs such as FYE
Faculty Perspectives 12
programs can benefit faculty by increasing their visibility within the organization, or contribute
to career development. On the other hand, participation can be challenging because of the
complicated governance, uncertainty of resources, and lack of support from colleagues and
administration (Wanca-Thibault et al., 2002).
Discussion of the Analytical Framework
Overview of Theoretical Perspectives
This study looked at theories of student development and retention theory, the effects of
teaching in an FYE program, and organizational theory of higher education. The research that
has been done on faculty involved in FYE programs provides a framework for studying the
faculty experience by looking at the professional, personal, and political components of the
faculty role (Wanca-Thibault et al., 2002). It is also important to understand the ways in which
student development theory approaches the first-year experience, and what practices are critical
to a program aimed at helping students achieve in college (Astin, 1993). The researcher also
reviewed theories of college student retention (Astin, 1993; Gardner, 1986; Tinto, 1996; and
Pacheco, 1994) because increasing retention is another goal of the MUSE program. The
researcher found organizational theory of higher education equally important to review at
because this study focused on faculty whose role within a complex organization has an effect on
his or her experience teaching in a first-year program.
Overview of the Analytical Framework
Wanca-Thibault and colleagues’ (2002) study of faculty participating in FYE programs
discovered that perceived opportunities and challenges for program participants fell into three
thematic categories: professional, political, and personal. The analytical framework for this
study (Figure 1.0) uses these thematic categories as a foundation to understand the participating
Faculty Perspectives 13
faculty perspectives of teaching in the MUSE program within the institutional environment of
SJSU. The researcher was able to determine specific factors that can influence the faculty
perspectives from the review of literature, which included college student development theory,
retention theory, and organizational politics theory. Examples of these specific factors are: the
institutional resources available to the program, cross-institutional networking, understanding
first-year students, and one’s role as a teacher. All of these factors were then matched with the
related thematic categories determined by Wanca-Thibault et al. (2002). The analytical
framework as a Venn diagram was developed as a way to understand the complex role of faculty
and the various factors that affect perspectives on participating in the MUSE program.
Faculty Perspectives 14
Analytical Framework
Teaching in FYE Programs
Based on the research of WancaThibault et al. (2002), Barefoot et al.
(1998), and Fidler et al. (1999)
College Student Development
and Retention
Astin (1993), Tinto (1993), Gardner
(1986), and Pacheco (1994)
Faculty Role within
Structure of the
FYE Program
Pedagogies
Understanding FirstPracticed
Year Students
FYE Training and
Development
Workload and
Compensation
RTP Process
Relationships Across
Disciplines
Faculty
Teaching in
FYE Programs
Resources
Peer Support
Role as Teacher
Institutional Goals
CrossInstitutional
Networking
Individual Goals
Organizational Politics in IHEs
Barr & Assoc. (1993) and Moore (1993)
Figure 1.0
Overview of Key Terms
The terms in the analytical framework were derived from the literature reviewed.
Wanca-Thibault et al. (2002) state that the “personal effects focused on issues of self-awareness
and social interaction which impact interpersonal relationships. Professional effects were
identified as those issues having to do with an individual’s development as a teacher and scholar.
Political effects emphasized the perceptions of those in power and the impact of those
Faculty Perspectives 15
perceptions on another individual’s career progress” (p. 30). Among personal effects, faculty
members can be influenced by their internal value systems or goals as well as by the
relationships they are able to build with colleagues across the university. Professional effects
can be characterized by opportunities for the development of teaching pedagogies, or his or her
ability to work with different types of students. Political effects include factors such as the
abundance or scarcity of resources, and the mission of the institution. Some factors were placed
inside the overlapping areas of the Venn diagram to demonstrate their effect in more than one
thematic category.
Summary of the Analytical Framework: Contributions to the Study
The analytical framework for this study helped to illustrate the complex role of faculty
within institutions of higher education in a way that allowed the researcher to examine how
specific factors impact participating faculty. The research questions and instruments for this
study were built upon the foundation of the thematic categories and the framework that emerged
from the review of the literature. Finally, the analytical framework helped the researcher to
interpret and analyze the data collected in the focus group discussions and surveys.
Research Questions
Based on the analytical framework and the prominent theories of student retention,
development, organizational politics, and faculty involvement in FYE experience programs the
researcher identified the following questions for this study:
4. What are the benefits of teaching in the MUSE program?
5. What are the challenges of teaching in the MUSE program?
6. How do MUSE faculty describe their experience in achieving the MUSE goals?
Faculty Perspectives 16
Assumptions
In conducting this study, the researcher has made the assumption that first-year
experience programs contribute to student success. The decision to study faculty perspectives
was made in part because the researcher believes faculty to be a critical component in achieving
the program goals. The researcher also made the assumption that faculty perspectives affect his
or her attitudes toward the experience, which affects his or her behavior. The researcher believes
that faculty behaviors have a direct impact on the success of the program. In researching faculty
in the program, the researcher understands that there are many influences on faculty
perspectives, and that the faculty experience in institutions of higher education is highly political.
Finally, the researcher made the assumption that faculty who volunteer to participate in the
MUSE program understand and strive to achieve the goals of the program.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was that there was not an exact balance between current and
former faculty members as the researcher had planned. There were a greater number of current
faculty members involved, which may affect the type of responses given in the focus group
discussions. Another limitation was a technological error that caused the final 10 minutes of the
focus group B discussion to be inaudible; therefore there are a smaller number of responses to
the final question. This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of a Master of Arts degree
which placed some time constraints and additional stress on the researcher. It is also important to
note that there is little research on faculty in FYE programs.
Faculty Perspectives 17
Chapter III
Methodology
Research Design
This study is a qualitative case study of 9 current and 4 former MUSE faculty members.
The researcher chose the case study framework because each faculty member had a different
experience based on their level of involvement in faculty development opportunities, their
specific course topic, the student’s enrolled, having a Peer Mentor in their course, and the time at
which they decided to enter the program. The faculty members selected to participate in this
study were chosen randomly by placing the names of all current faculty into one container, and
the names of former faculty into another container and picking names from each.
The researcher designed the study around the paradigm of naturalistic inquiry.
Naturalistic research uses qualitative methods, case study reporting, and it allows the research
design to emerge because it is not possible that enough can be known about the various multiple
realities to construct an effective design at the beginning of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The naturalistic paradigm is suitable for this study because of the complex reality that determines
how a faculty member experiences the specific structure of the MUSE program at SJSU. The
data collected in naturalistic research is interpreted in terms of the particular situation rather than
posing generalizations, and the theory that emerges is grounded in the data because it is not
possible for any “a priori theory …to encompass the multiple realities that are encountered.”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985 p.41)
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) naturalistic axioms include: (1) “There are
multiple constructed realities that can be studied only holistically; inquiry into these multiple
realities will inevitably diverge so that prediction and control are unlikely outcomes although
Faculty Perspectives 18
some level of understanding can be achieved” (p.37); (2) “The inquirer and the ‘object’ of
inquiry interact to influence one another” (p.37); (3) “The aim of inquiry is to develop an
idiographic body of knowledge in the form of ‘working hypotheses’ that describe the individual
case” (p.38); (4) “All entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping so that it is
impossible to distinguish causes from effects” (p.38); and (5) Naturalistic inquiry is bound in the
values and the unique experience of the participants.
The researcher conducted a pilot study prior to beginning this project for a required
course. This experience allowed the researcher to make necessary changes to improve the focus
the research instruments, and refine her research skills. This pilot study involved one former and
one current faculty member in a focus group discussion, and in the completion of the survey.
Selection of Cases
To understand the MUSE faculty perspectives on teaching in the program, the researcher
chose to study faculty who taught in the MUSE program in the past and have discontinued their
participation as well as faculty who continue to participate. By studying these faculty members,
the researcher found a range of experiences that were both positive and negative. Names of all
former and current faculty members were written on paper, placed into respective containers, and
picked out one at a time. The names were recorded to create a list of 20 former and 20 current
faculty members who were invited to participate. The researcher proceeded to fill each focus
group discussion as faculty members responded and agreed to take part. Although the
researcher’s goal was to have 2 focus group sessions with 10 cases in each (balanced with 50%
former and 50% current faculty members), only 13 faculty agreed to participate. The low
response rate may be attributed to the fact that the study was conducted at the end of the semester
Faculty Perspectives 19
when many faculty were busy with final exams and grading. The study was conducted with 9
current MUSE faculty and 4 former MUSE faculty.
Sources of Data
The data collected came from surveys and the transcription of the 2 focus group
discussions. Additional data were collected from documentation such as seminar syllabi,
proposals, and program materials, which were available in the MUSE program office.
Data Collection
The data were collected from tape recordings of the focus group discussions facilitated by
the researcher as well as a videotape of the discussions, which was recorded to ensure the
accuracy of data. Demographic data as well as some content-based data were also gathered from
the completed surveys collected by the researcher at the time of the focus group meeting, and
from program documentation made available from the MUSE Director.
Focus group A consisted of 2 former faculty and 5 current MUSE faculty. Focus group B
consisted of 2 former faculty and 4 current MUSE faculty. Due to a technological error in
recording, the researcher was unable to retrieve the final 10 minutes of the second focus group,
therefore the responses for question number 5 are limited to the participants in focus group A.
Instrumentation
The participants of the study completed a brief survey that the researcher designed based
on her knowledge of the program as a Graduate Assistant, suggestions from the MUSE Director,
and guidance from a former MUSE faculty member who is also an experienced qualitative
researcher. The purpose of the survey was to identify and understand the specific factors that
may affect the MUSE teaching experience of each participant. (Appendix A). The researcher
created the questions designed for the focus group discussion based on the research questions
Faculty Perspectives 20
analytical framework, and with guidance from the MUSE Director and the former MUSE faculty
member mentioned above. (Appendix B). To ensure that the participants clearly understood each
question, the researcher provided them with a Definition of Terms sheet to reference (Appendix
C).
Data Analysis Strategies
The data from the surveys were compiled in a spreadsheet that allowed the researcher to
sort and reorganize the data to determine quantitative characteristics of the subjects (e.g., how
many of the cases studied attended MUSE social events). The survey also contained two openended questions. The data from these questions were coded based on the analytical framework
and other themes that appeared as a pattern. The data from the focus group discussion were tape
recorded and transcribed by the researcher. These data were analyzed based on the themes
presented in the analytical framework, and the development of cross-case narratives that
reinforced the validity of the findings. The researcher linked relevant statements in the focus
group discussion to themes and recorded the frequency and sub topics that were presented. Data
provided by each faculty member were also analyzed in the context of the faculty member’s
demographic information provided from program documentation and surveys.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher was a Graduate Assistant for the MUSE program, supporting the Director
in the program’s administration. The researcher has been in this position from August 2003 to
present, and has a working relationship with the faculty participating in the study. The
researcher chose the topic of this study based on experiencing a lack of information available for
program development in her workplace. Being directly involved in the program, the researcher
Faculty Perspectives 21
believes that the program is a positive addition to the SJSU curriculum, which is a bias that she
avoided as an influence on her research.
Strategies for Minimizing Bias and Error
In order to minimize bias and error in this study, the researcher chose all participants at
random by compiling the names of all current and former MUSE faculty in separate containers
and picking one name from each container. The researcher had all instruments reviewed by the
MUSE Director and a former MUSE faculty member who is experienced in qualitative research.
The participants included current and former faculty members so that the data were balanced
between those who may have had a negative experience (which might have led them to
discontinue their participation) and those who may have had a positive experience (which may
lead them to continue their involvement). The balance of current and former faculty was to
ensure that the researcher’s bias did not influence the study. The focus group discussion was
tape recorded to ensure accuracy of data. The data were kept in a secure location in the
researcher’s home to avoid any tampering with or loss of data. A pilot study was conducted
prior to the beginning of this study which allowed the researcher to practice the instrumentation
as well as revise any questions that were unclear. The researcher did not involve the MUSE
Director in any of the data collection activities so that the participants would not feel pressure to
respond in a way that would not offend the Director.
Ethical Issues
This study followed the ethical principles and guidelines established by the American
Psychological Association. These principles include beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity,
responsibility, integrity, justice, and respecting people’s rights and dignity. The researcher
Faculty Perspectives 22
focused on the specific guidelines of “Privacy and Confidentiality” and “Research and
Publication” within the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Codes of Conduct (American
Psychological Association, 2001). The researcher sent a letter by electronic mail to invite the
faculty members to participate in the study (Appendix D) along with an Informed Consent form
(Appendix E) and Research Description (Appendix F).
Faculty Perspectives 23
Chapter IV
Summary of the Findings
The intention of this study was to understand the influences and factors that affect faculty
who choose to teach in the first-year program at SJSU. The findings were influenced by the
analytical framework, the data collected from surveys, and focus group discussion. The findings
are presented based on the research questions and the thematic categories in the analytical
framework: personal, professional, and political effects. Upon analyzing the data, the researcher
discovered some other notable themes that were not included in the analytical framework. The
data that appeared on the survey and was repeated in the focus group discussions, as well as
themes that emerged through cross-case narratives were considered most significant by the
researcher.
Demographic Data
There were 9 current and 4 former MUSE faculty that took part in this study. Despite the
imbalance between current and former faculty, there was a broad range of demographic
characteristics represented in the group with regards to the how the participant learned of the
opportunity to participate in MUSE, his/her college, general education area designation, level of
experience in the program, professional development regarding the FYE, and whether or not
his/her class was assigned a Peer Mentor.
GE Area of MUSE Course
Current Former Total
Area B1: Physical Science
1
1
2
Area B2: Biological Science
0
0
0
Area C1: Humanities, Arts
0
0
0
Area C2: Humanities, Letters
1
0
1
Area D1: Social Sciences, Human Behavior
3
0
3
Area E: Human Understanding & Development
4
3
7
Figure 2.0
Faculty Perspectives 24
Number of MUSE Courses Taught
Current
Former
0 Semesters
1
0
1 Semester
4
4
2 Semesters
4
0
3 Semesters
0
0
4 Semesters
0
0
Figure 3.0
Total
1
8
4
0
0
MUSE Activities
Type
Facilitating Workshop
Advisory Board Member
Campus Tour
Professional Presentations
Provost's Address
President's Address
Spartan Orientation
MUSE Social Events
Optional faculty development
Figure 4.0
Current Former Total
2
0
2
4
1
5
4
1
5
2
1
3
4
3
7
5
1
6
0
1
1
5
4
9
3
1
4
Number of Activities Participants Attended
Current
Former
Total
No Answer/0
2
0
2
1
2
1
3
2
0
1
1
3
2
0
2
4
2
1
3
5
0
0
0
6
0
1
1
7
0
0
0
8
1
0
1
9
0
0
0
Figure 5.0
Faculty Perspectives 25
Peer Mentor
Once
Twice
Never
Will have one in Fall 04
Figure 6.0
Current Former
4
1
0
0
4
3
1
0
Total
5
0
7
1
Open Answer Question:
How did you hear about MUSE?
Current Former
BOGS
1
0
Annette/Lee
4
2
Other MUSE Instructor
1
1
Campus Announcements/Flyers
2
1
Supervisor
1
0
Figure 7.0
Open Answer Question:
Why do you continue to teach?
Current
Freedom
1
FY Students
6
Belief in MUSE Goals
3
Teach New/Evolving Topic
2
MUSE Faculty/Staff
1
Contribute to Excellent Program
1
Learn A Lot
1
Figure 8.0
Open Answer Question:
Why did you leave the program?
Former
Department Responsibilities
1
Other Responsibilities
1
RTP Responsibilities
1
No Response
1
Figure 9.0
Total
1
6
2
3
1
%
6.7%
40.0%
20.0%
13.3%
6.7%
6.7%
6.7%
%
25%
25%
25%
25%
The majority of participants in this study have taught MUSE courses for one semester
(62%) (Figure 3.0), primarily in Area D1: Social Sciences, Human Behavior and E: Human
Understanding and Development (Figure 2.0). The most common MUSE activity for the
Faculty Perspectives 26
participants to attend were MUSE social events (61%) followed by the Provost’s and President’s
address to students (54%) (Figure 4.0). Out of the 9 activities offered to MUSE faculty during
the academic year, many participants attended 1 or 4 these activities (Figure 5.0). 7 out of 13
participants (54%) had never had a Peer Mentor involved in their MUSE course, and the
anecdotal data regarding Peer Mentors in MUSE courses were always positive (Figure 6.0). A
high proportion of the participants were recruited to teach in the program directly from the
university administrators that were charged with implementing the program (46%) (Figure 7.0).
The surveys also showed that the former MUSE faculty members who participated in this study
decided to discontinue their involvement in the MUSE program due to other responsibilities. 40
percent of the current MUSE faculty in this study decided to continue participating in the MUSE
program because they enjoyed working with the students (Figure 8.0-9.0).
What are the benefits of participating in the MUSE program?
The focus group discussions provided the researcher with information that was both
positive and negative across the various themes. Sub-topics emerged through stories that were
told and statements made by the participants.
Professional Benefits. According to the analytical framework, the professional factors of
participating in the MUSE program can be demonstrated by the faculty role in the FYE program,
the pedagogical practices used, professional development, and faculty’s understanding of the
first-year student. Overall, by looking at the frequency of the data, the professional factors of the
MUSE experience were discussed the most (39%) compared to personal (6%) or political factors
(20%) (Figure 10.0). Faculty members are able to teach a topic that is new and different from
their regular course load. One participant stated that, “It was a great opportunity, first of all to
develop my own curriculum, and to do something a little bit different”, another said, “I got to
Faculty Perspectives 27
teach something new. I never get to teach anything new. Most of my stuff is repeats.” MUSE
faculty are also able to guide students and help them to achieve. One current faculty member
said, “there was a heavy advisement component that I thought I would contribute to and possibly
learn a lot from as well”. A common theme across both discussion groups was the difference
between teaching a MUSE course versus a regular course. Participants stated that the MUSE
program places a stronger focus on teaching. Other university courses are often focused on
content rather than the process of teaching. For example, a participant stated that,
“It made me go back to back-to-basics teaching…I felt more like in high school you have
to be a good teacher or else you don’t get respect and they just don’t listen to you. In
college, you can kind of say anything and stand up there for 3 hours and basically they
are going to…accept what you are saying more or less, or sleep because it’s expectation.
So, I felt that I had to go back and really teach more…I thought that was really good for
me- the benefit of being a good teacher and improving your teaching skills, which I
thought was the best part.”
MUSE faculty stated that they felt more empowered and engaged in teaching the MUSE course.
In discussing the process of developing and approving their MUSE curriculum, participating
faculty used terms such as “creative”, “intellectual”, “engaging”, “more academic”, and
“respect”.
Other professional benefits emerged when discussing FYE training opportunities,
learning about, and understanding first-year students. The faculty participants mentioned the
positive experiences they had at MUSE faculty orientations and in the small Peer Review Groups
when developing their curriculum. Positive statements about being able to work with faculty
outside his/her department, educational components, and the optimistic attitude of the faculty in
the program were repeated throughout the discussion. One faculty member said, “it was one of
the best things I have experienced in terms of educating me and getting to know faculty.”
Faculty Perspectives 28
The category of understanding the first-year student was the second largest at 12% of all
relevant statements made during the focus group discussions (See Figure 10.0). This category
contained many cross-case data and it emerged in a variety of conversations amongst the
participants. Sub-topics within this category that were a professional benefit were the ability to
see the student as a person, gaining a further appreciation of the diversity of the first-year
students at SJSU, and utilizing the student’s strong technical skills. In regard to seeing the
student as a person and describing their close relationship, participants used words such as
“babies”, “human”, and “depth”.
Personal Benefits. In relation to the professional benefits to participating in the MUSE
program, the participants in the study expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to create
relationships with other faculty across discipline and the peer support that these relationships
provided. In discussing their reasons for being involved in the program and the benefits,
participants listed topics such as meeting faculty with similar interests, creating new
relationships out of one’s comfort zone, and increased pride in the institution. The participants
stated that these factors encouraged a positive attitude toward problem solving, were motivating,
and increased his/her productivity. One participant stated that the obligation she felt toward
helping her first-year students succeed, and gaining an appreciation for their struggle gave her a
new found pride in being a part of the SJSU community. She put an SJSU bumper sticker on her
car for the first time in over 15 years. Another example of a personal benefit related to
professional effects was the opportunity to meet and work with faculty who have similar
interests. For example, one participant said,
“I am feeling good about being a faculty at SJSU because we just get into our own
department or some other area and just see people who teach this or that for plenty of
different reasons, but then having the opportunity to meet faculty across the campus
Faculty Perspectives 29
talking about teaching! Things that are really important. I learned quite a lot through this
process.”
Another strong cross-case narrative that emerged was that the faculty members felt
connected to the first-year students. One participant expressed, “I was surprised by how much I
liked these kids…I mean really, really, liked- at a core- who they were”, and another stated, “I
wasn’t expecting to be so connected to my students. I mean I really got to know them well and
just as human beings. I really liked them a lot.” Although some participants were surprised,
others entered into the program with an interest in first-year students. For example one
participant stated that, “I just have such a heart for freshmen…they first come in and they are
kind of wide-eyed, open minded and impressionable and that is when they can learn study skills
and we can form these bonds”. Other participants stated that they were able to learn from their
first-year MUSE students. One participant was impressed and encouraged by the level of openmindedness toward diversity that her MUSE students had because she did not experience such
diversity in her own education. SJSU students are often non-traditional and struggle to make
ends meet while trying to earn their Bachelor’s degree. Referring to this struggle of the first-year
student one participant said, “it was a point of reference that I just don’t have- I have never
experienced. There are certain things that I really struggle with that I have got blinders up to
because they’re just not part of my experience. Some of the stuff hit home for me, and that was
really important.”
Political Benefits. One of the political benefits listed by the participants was related to
the economic implications for the individual departments and colleges. For one participant,
joining the MUSE program opened up the possibility for a part-time faculty member in her
department to teach another course. As a department chair, one participant stated that she felt
Faculty Perspectives 30
having a faculty member participate in the MUSE program helped develop a positive
relationship with the Provost because the program was his initiative. She said, “generally if the
Provost knows you and likes you, its always better than if he doesn’t like you. That’s always a
political plus no matter where you are.” Within political and personal affects, many of the
participants repeated statements expressing their appreciation of creating relationships with
faculty and staff across the institution.
Additional Themes: Benefits. Throughout the focus group discussions, some themes
emerged that did not fit the categories listed within the existing analytical framework. One of
the prominent themes that emerged was the participant’s personal value system and interests.
Participants expressed emotions or beliefs around their involvement in the program and
interaction with students such as their “excitement”, “passion”, or “love for working with
freshmen”. Participants also stated that they “believed” in the goals of the MUSE program. One
participant decided to participate in the program because it was an “opportunity to teach
something (he) really cares about” while another participant expressed pride in the institution for
doing something “that is so important”.
What are the challenges to participating in the MUSE program?
Professional Challenges. The majority of statements regarding professional challenges
fell into the category of the pedagogies practiced. The other professional category where
challenges emerged to a lesser extent, was understanding first-year students. There were
differences between how intentional a faculty member was about teaching the MUSE goals
compared to the content of the course. One participant said that the MUSE goals emerged in her
course as “unintended consequences” of teaching the content in a small class size. Other
participants utilized peer support, or intentional activities focused on learning to achieve the
Faculty Perspectives 31
MUSE goals. 62% of the participants in this study had only taught their MUSE course for 1
semester and many of these participants referred to what they would change if/when they teach
the course again. For example, when discussing the strong technical skills of today’s first-year
student, one participant remarks, “I have to control this in the future because they use it as a
crutch almost for understanding…but I realized it at the end of the semester”. It was common
for participants to discuss challenges they had during their first semester teaching in the MUSE
program.
The other factor that presented a challenge for the participants in this study was that they
lacked an understanding of today’s first-year students. Topics such as generation gaps, changes
in the culture of universities over time, a lack of student preparedness, and interest in learning
emerged during the discussions. One participant could not believe that there were students in her
course that had never read an entire book. Two participants remarked on his/her surprise in the
beliefs and values of their MUSE students. Perhaps the strongest theme that presented itself in
this category was the first-year students’ immaturity and the lack of student preparedness for
college. One participant stated, “finally getting them like 2/3 of the way to actually read what
they were supposed to was big”. Another participant expressed disappointment; “they (students)
couldn’t even follow through on a level of commitment for doing something that was going to be
fun!” Other participants made similar remarks about the difficulty of teaching students who did
not have English as their first language, and teaching basic writing skills.
Personal Challenges. The majority of data in this study related to personal effects were
positive. However some participants expressed “disappointment” in the level of enthusiasm
students had for learning, and even hurt feelings when a student dropped out from his/her MUSE
course. For example, one participant stated, “I doubted (her decision to participate in MUSE).
Faculty Perspectives 32
That one time…that student that just slipped away right before my eyes. Oh! And it is not like I
had 40 students and I just missed one. I would call him at home. I would make him come to my
office. I would sit him down. I tried everything, and that hurt even more.” Another factor that
related to personal challenges involved the MUSE faculty orientation. Participants that were
lecturers discussed their initial apprehension in attending the orientation with assistant professors
and other tenured faculty. A participant who identified himself as a lecturer said, “I was worried,
and I am not typically lacking self-confidence, but I was worried because I was stepping into an
academic area which is new to me so it is tough for an old dog to learn new tricks, and I was
really afraid of you all (tenured professors), you know, showing me up for a fraud or something
like that.” 3 out of 5 participants that identified as lecturers made similar statements during the
focus group discussions. Although their apprehension was a challenge, all 3 of the above
lecturers expressed that they were happy to discover that they enjoyed the experience and the
relationships that were developed during the orientation session. One participant stated, “Here it
was, 2 days with people I didn’t know…I got to do it, and I thought it was excellent. So I learned
a lot- it was one of the best things I have experienced in terms of educating me and getting me to
know faculty- I was not expecting it, and it happened.”
Political Challenges. Many participants discussed the various political challenges that
were presented during their experience in the MUSE program. The most common factor that
presented challenges for the participants was resources. 4 participants experienced difficulties
getting his/her Dean to approve their course due to the money that it could potentially take away
from the individual college, and 5 participants stated that they experienced resentment coming
from other faculty in the department for being involved in the MUSE program. One participant
said, “I think that any dissatisfaction for the cost of the program or any other aspect of the
Faculty Perspectives 33
program that my colleagues have is centered on the administration. You know, not blaming the
people that are teaching the courses because they know that there is big recruitment efforts” (sic).
Additional Themes: Challenges. Related to the challenge of first-year students being
unprepared for college, 3 participants made statements about the way in which students are
taught to learn in high school compared to what they are being asked to do in college. One
example given by a participant from the College of Science was the strong emphasis that is put
on memorization and obtaining information in high school versus the critical and analytical
thinking skills that are desired of college level students.
How do MUSE faculty describe their experience in achieving the MUSE goals?
Professionally. As faculty members, participants varied greatly on how intentional
he/she was in teaching the MUSE goals in the classroom. One participant built a strong
component of peer support into his curriculum in order to teach some of the MUSE goals.
Another participant did not write any of the MUSE content into her curriculum, but saw the
MUSE goals as “unintended consequences” when working with such a small group of students
and engaging them in active learning. Other participants incorporated academic advising, field
trips, or presentations from staff and upper classmen into their course in order to achieve the
MUSE goals. 2 participants commented on helping students see their progress and “believe in
themselves” as key factors in achieving the MUSE goals. The participants in the first focus
group expressed agreement as 2 other participants discussed how students use technology
(specifically PowerPoint) as a crutch in understanding concepts. One participant presented a
possible strategy to help students abandon this crutch: “I gave them (students) opportunities to
not just do a PowerPoint presentation at the end (of the semester), but early on so I was able to
give them feedback throughout the semester”.
Faculty Perspectives 34
Personally. As mentioned above in the summary of findings related to personal benefits,
multiple participants expressed “excitement” and “pride” in being able to help first-year students
succeed. For example, one participant said, “it made me feel good cause I am thinking that all of
these teachers in the future are going to thank me for this…It makes you also feel personally
good cause you’re really teaching them”. Another participant felt “a huge sense of obligation to
help guide the way”. The relationships that participants were able to create with other faculty and
the opportunity to engage in dialogue about teaching was said to increase his/her productivity
and ability to achieve the goals of the program.
Politically. Within the analytical framework, resources, workload, and compensation fall
under the political effects of participating in the MUSE program. Multiple participants expressed
that a great deal of time and work went into creating a new curriculum that would effectively
teach the MUSE goals. Some participants who had a variety of other responsibilities on campus
said that they did not feel that they had as much time as they would have liked to work on their
MUSE course. A participant stated that it took “a lot of my own commitment and drive to do it”.
In addition to the amount of time required to develop and teach a MUSE course, 2 participants
pointed out that being involved with the MUSE program will be, “with luck, ongoing workbecause I think most of us talked about students who are now connected with us and come
back…you have them for 4 to 6 years when they come back by to get help on things.” MUSE
responsibilities require a greater amount of work than one’s regular course load with little or no
additional compensation awarded.
Faculty Perspectives 35
Number of Focus Group Statements Containing Relevant Data (Frequency)*
#
%
Total Total %
78
38.61%
Professional
Faculty Role in FYE Programs
14 6.93%
Pedagogies Practiced
30 14.85%
FYE Training and Development
10 4.95%
Understanding First-Year Students
24 11.88%
15
7.43%
Professional/Personal
Relationships Across Disciplines
9
4.46%
Peer Support
6
2.97%
22
10.89%
Professional/Political
Workload & Compensation
19 9.41%
RTP Process
3
1.49%
12
5.94%
Personal
Role as Teacher
8
3.96%
Individual Goals
4
1.98%
3
1.49%
Personal/Political
Cross-Institutional Networking
3
1.49%
41
20.30%
Political
Resources
25 12.38%
Institutional Goals
16 7.92%
31
15.35%
Other
Role of the Institution
2
0.99%
Curriculum
3
1.49%
10 4.95%
Personal Values/Feeling Personal Values & Interests
Relationship
with
Students
7
3.47%
26
13%
Oriented Responses
Personal Perspective
6
2.97%
Dropouts
3
1.49%
Out of 453 total
TOTAL
202
statements
*45% of total statements were considered relevant
Figure 10.0
Faculty Perspectives 36
Chapter V
Conclusions
The conclusions of this study were developed from the analysis of data, the literature
reviewed, and the analytical framework for the study. The conclusions listed below are specific
to the MUSE first-year experience program at SJSU. The conclusions are linked to the thematic
categories of the analytical framework and respond to the research questions.
What are the benefits of participating in the MUSE Program?
The Students. A primary benefit of participating in the MUSE program for faculty is the
personal and professional interest in the first-year experience. Professionally, MUSE faculty
may choose to teach a MUSE course because they want to teach something different and new, or
because they want the experience of teaching freshmen. Personally, MUSE faculty often have a
genuine interest in the success and well-being of the first-year students and find that helping
them learn the skills they need to do well in college is personally rewarding. The faculty who
participate in the MUSE program tend to be involved in their careers because of their passion for
teaching and the positive influence they could potentially have on their students. MUSE faculty
also learn a lot from their first-year students about the issues that young adults face in society
and how they go about over coming their hardships. Engaging with these students serves to open
the minds of the faculty to perspectives and ideas that they may not have previously known.
Relationships. By participating in the MUSE program faculty develop relationships with
their students and with other faculty across disciplines. An overwhelming majority of
participants in this study enjoyed being involved with the MUSE program because it gave them
the opportunity to meet and talk with other faculty on campus outside of their own departments.
Due to the organizational structure of the institution many departments and colleges operate in a
Faculty Perspectives 37
silo where they may not engage with any faculty or staff outside of the office in which they
work. The participants in this study appreciate the opportunity to engage in dialogue about their
profession: teaching. These faculty feel that it is important to develop these relationships, share
ideas, and create a network of support. This factor could increase overall job satisfaction and
productivity.
MUSE faculty also value the relationships that they are able to create with their first-year
students. These relationships are one of the most pleasant surprises for many faculty who come
into the MUSE program because they have not had the experience of such a small class size
which emphasizes active learning, discussion, and reflection. Getting to know students on a
personal level, and gaining an understanding and appreciation for who they are can cause faculty
to become more passionate about the concept of teaching or development after participating in
the program for just one semester. A benefit of creating such strong relationships with students
during their first year is that the faculty continue to stay in contact with the students throughout
their time at SJSU and are able to see the student’s progress and development. The concept of
being able to contribute in a positive way to the development of another person through the
MUSE program makes faculty who participate feel proud of their work on an intrinsic level.
Professional Development. Some faculty initially choose to participate in the MUSE
program to add to their professional experience. As a faculty member, especially those who are
approaching the application process to become tenured, it is important to have a broad range of
experience. Aspects of the MUSE program that contribute to professional development are the
various pedagogies involved, developing one’s own curriculum, working with other faculty
across disciplines, and teaching a different type of student. The MUSE course is also an
opportunity for faculty to teach something new in creative ways. The freedom involved in
Faculty Perspectives 38
teaching in the MUSE program can be enticing to faculty who are creative by nature, who have
been teaching the same course of a long period of time, or who are looking to try different
approaches to a topic.
Another professional benefit for faculty participating in the MUSE program is the
exposure to the many resources on campus, and the skills they gain by advising their first-year
students. Teaching a MUSE course gives faculty the opportunity to gain a broader perspective
on the institution they work for and it’s programs. This in turn helps faculty to become better
advisors to all his/her students. As stated in the literature reviewed for this study, MUSE faculty
are also able to transfer the skills they learn from their MUSE experience over to the other
courses they teach which improves their productivity in the classroom.
What are the challenges of participating in the MUSE Program?
Workload and Compensation. Based on the responses of the former MUSE faculty and
a number of current MUSE faculty, the primary challenge of participating in the MUSE program
is the added workload and the strain on any other professional responsibilities. Despite the
smaller class size, teaching a MUSE course is a greater amount of work because faculty must
develop their curriculum, participate in a mandatory faculty orientation, work with other faculty
and staff to develop activities to help achieve the MUSE goals, and provide advising to the
students on an ongoing basis all while trying to teach the basic content of the course. For a
faculty member who is trying to get onto the tenure track, teaching a MUSE course for more than
one semester (after getting the experience needed for his/her résumé) is not advisable according
to tenured MUSE faculty because there are many other objectives that need to be achieved
during the RTP process. This dynamic makes it very difficult for the MUSE program to recruit
and retain faculty that are not already tenured. If the program continues to lose faculty due to
Faculty Perspectives 39
RTP responsibilities, it risks losing the edge and energy that young professionals provide which
attracts many students during the recruitment process. Even for the faculty that are tenured, it is
difficult to teach in the MUSE program over time because of the minimal compensation given
for the additional workload. The challenges related to workload and compensation make faculty
retention an important issue for the future of the program.
Political Activity Between Administration and Colleges. Some faculty members have
fought to get their Department Chair or Dean to allow them to teach a MUSE course. It is clear
that due to the current system at SJSU, which compensates departments according to the number
of students taught, it is not financially beneficial for departments to have faculty spend time
teaching 15 students when they could be teaching 40. When there is a decrease in a department’s
resources other faculty and staff positions are put in jeopardy, which causes an environment of
resentment and even hostility toward the MUSE program. This political activity is discouraging
for MUSE faculty and any other faculty who might be interested in teaching a MUSE course in
the future. Political activity is a threat to the success of the program because it could potentially
limit the program to a few of the colleges at SJSU, and it poses a threat to faculty retention,
recruitment.
The Students. Just as the students are a benefit to participating in the MUSE program,
they are equally as challenging. MUSE faculty are faced with the task of teaching students an
appreciation for learning that they have often not been taught in high school, and the lack of
preparation that students have entering college is a major obstacle in this process. Some students
have been taught to rely on technical skills to succeed, and others have been taught to rely on the
memorization of facts. According to an administrator on the MUSE Advisory Board, over 60%
of incoming students at SJSU require remediation in language, math, or both. The
Faculty Perspectives 40
developmental level of incoming first-year students can deter faculty from continuing to
participate because he/she feels that they can be a more productive teacher with other, more
advanced students. MUSE faculty often become discouraged or frustrated when the students
present behaviors that sometimes require the faculty member to act less as a teacher and more as
a disciplinarian. Despite these struggles, student preparedness was not given as a reason for
faculty members participating in this study to discontinue his/her involvement in the MUSE
program.
How do MUSE faculty describe their experience in achieving the MUSE goals?
Inconsistency in Approach. The findings show that there is little consistency in how
participating faculty approach the MUSE goals, which made it difficult for the researcher to
categorize their experiences and draw conclusions. However, the varied approaches could
translate into inconsistent experiences for the first-year students, which makes the outcomes of
the program difficult to measure and minimizes the guarantee that students will be more
successful if they take a MUSE course. It is possible that the MUSE goals are not defined
clearly enough for all faculty to use as objectives when creating their MUSE curriculum, and it
may be that the group responsible for approving the curricula is not enforcing any specific
guidelines for teaching to the MUSE goals. If the goals of the program were more explicit, there
may be more consistency in what each student gains. The one or two day faculty orientation
does not appear to provide enough detail, background, or guidelines on how MUSE faculty can
achieve the goals of the program.
Personally Rewarding. The MUSE goals are appealing to participating faculty who
believe that the program’s purpose is important. These faculty enjoy teaching a MUSE course
because they value learning as a process, student development, and improving student’s
Faculty Perspectives 41
educational experience. Since their values are in line with the goals of the program, these faculty
describe their experience in the program positively. If this is true, then faculty who see students
and higher education from a different perspective (for example, viewing institutions of higher
education as a business where students are customers and faculty provide a service) will either
choose not to participate in the program, or discontinue their involvement after 1 semester.
Workload Issues. Achieving the goals of the MUSE program is difficult because
teaching study skills and scholarship requires a great deal more time and energy than teaching a
typical course. The increased workload may cause some faculty members to spend less time on
the MUSE goals and more time on course content in order to manage his/her other
responsibilities. The potential for this to occur can also create inconsistency in the level at which
MUSE goals are covered in the course, causing difficulty in measuring outcomes and minimizing
the guarantee that students will benefit from taking a MUSE course over other general education
classes.
Summary of Conclusions
By analyzing the data in this study, and connecting it to the literature reviewed, the
researcher was able to draw conclusions about how faculty experience the MUSE first-year
experience program. The analytical framework that was developed for this study provided a
strong foundation from which the researcher could organize, analyze, and interpret data.
However, by conducting the focus group discussions the researcher found that there were a
significant number of responses (13% of total relevant responses) that did not fit precisely into
any of the factors or categories within the framework (Figure 10.0). These responses were
primarily focused on the participant’s personal interests and values around human potential and
student development.
Faculty Perspectives 42
The researcher was also able to identify areas of the program that can be developed in
order to increase its ability to achieve its goals. Other conclusions provide the researcher with a
greater understanding of what influences MUSE faculty both positively and negatively. This
study has made it apparent that one of the most important factors or influences on faculty who
participate in the program are his/her personal values and interests. The demographic data
gathered from the survey also provided some useful information for the development of the
program unrelated to the research questions of this study such as the importance of MUSE
activities for participating faculty.
Faculty Perspectives 43
Chapter VI
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made by the researcher based on the findings and
conclusions of this study. The recommendations are focused on enhancing the MUSE faculty
experience in order to improve faculty retention, develop faculty recruitment strategies, and to
improve the program’s ability to meet its desired outcomes.
1. Provide more opportunities for MUSE faculty to engage in discussions around teaching
and student development.
2. Create a clear definition for the purpose of the MUSE program, its goals, and specific
objectives related to each goal.
3. Extend or revise the MUSE Faculty Orientation to include additional training on student
development and guidelines for achieving the goals for the program.
4. Encourage or require faculty participating in the MUSE program to be more intentional
and conscious of the goals of the program, while sacrificing as little freedom and
creativity as possible.
5. Research opportunities to improve the RTP process to include recognition and/or
compensation for participating in campus programs such as MUSE.
6. Continued research on the factors affecting the faculty experience in FYE programs.
Research on the personal or intrinsic influences will help professionals and administrators
understand their faculty and strengthen the existing analytical framework. Research on
the professional factors involved in participating in a FYE program will help
administrators develop and refine the ways these programs are designed with regard to
outcomes, measurement, and sustainability.
Faculty Perspectives 44
Chapter VII
Lessons Learned
A benefit of conducting research is that the process enlightens the researcher to specific
areas for improvement in his or her practice. The lessons learned in this study are helpful in
conducting further research as well as helping understand the data collected. The researcher
learned the following lessons by conducting this research study.
1. Always consider what information is foreground and what is background. Research can
be easily hindered when the narrative strays off topic. Clarity and conciseness is
imperative in communicating one’s research. It becomes difficult for the reader to
discern the purpose of the study if it is disguised among irrelevant information. Another
area where it is imperative to focus on the “foreground” of the topic is in the development
of the analytical framework, which steers the course for the research process.
2. Be open to reading literature sources that are not on the exact topic. If the researcher
attempts to filter through all of the literature to find information or theory on the exact
topic being studied, the research study would never end. Much of the literature the
researcher approaches contains valuable data that can contribute to the study, or contains
citations that can lead to other valuable sources.
3. Test your questions. In order to make sure that the instruments will provide the data
needed to answer the research questions, the researcher should test the instrument on a
colleague or expert in the area being studied. Participants will not always interpret the
meaning of the questions as the researcher does. The responses to questions contained in
the instrument are directly related to the quality of the data, the conclusions, and
ultimately, the research study.
Faculty Perspectives 45
4. Separate yourself from the data analysis process. When interpreting, categorizing, and
analyzing data, the researcher must avoid all bias by separating all prior knowledge of the
research site, the participants, and personal opinions from the process. It is tempting for
the researcher to assert his or her personal knowledge or opinions when analyzing the
data, but making those assertions taints the study and the validity of the outcomes.
5. Research is a complicated yet rewarding undertaking. Throughout the study, the
researcher developed an understanding and appreciation for the extraordinary research
process. Conducting research required that the researcher was willing to be pushed out of
her comfort zone to take on an exercise that was time consuming, difficult, and constantly
evolving. As the study unfolded, the researcher got to reap the rewards of the process as
she began to see the creation of new information and the potential for the study to create
change.
Faculty Perspectives 46
Appendix A: Survey
Participating Faculty Perspectives on Teaching in the First-Year Experience Program
ID Number: _______________________________ Date: _____________________________
Department: _______________________________ College: ___________________________
MUSE Course Title: ____________________________________________________________
GE Area: __________________________________
1. I taught my MUSE Course in: (Please check all that apply)
□ Fall 2002-2003
□ Spring 2002-2003
□ Fall 2003-2004
□ Spring 2003-2004
2. I attended the MUSE Faculty Orientation(s) that are mandatory for new faculty in:
(Please check all that apply)
□ Winter 2002
□ Winter 2003
□ Winter 2004
□ Never Attended
3. Please check any other activities you have been involved in related to MUSE
□ Facilitating a MUSE Workshop for students
□ MUSE Advisory Board member
□ MUSE Campus Tour (annual)
□ MUSE Presentation on/off campus for other professionals
□ Provost Goodman’s address to students (October 2003)
□ President Caret’s address to students (October 2002)
□ Spartan Scholar Orientation (annual)
□ MUSE social events (ex: MUSE 3.6 Party- March 2004)
□ Optional MUSE faculty development workshop(s). If so, how many? ____________
4. How did you learn about the opportunity to participate in the MUSE program?
5. Did you have a Peer Mentor in your MUSE class?
□ Once
□ Twice
□ Never
6. If you are a former MUSE faculty member, why did you make the decision to leave the
MUSE program? If you are a returning MUSE faculty member, why do you continue to
participate?
Faculty Perspectives 47
Appendix B: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Discussion
Participating Faculty Perspectives on Teaching in the First-Year Experience Program
DISCUSSION TOPIC
The MUSE faculty perspectives on their experience participating in the MUSE program and
meeting the MUSE goals
GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. Why did you decide to participate in the MUSE program?
2. What were your expectations?
3. During your time with MUSE, tell me about a time or a specific moment when you were
really happy to be part of the MUSE program.
4. During your time with MUSE, tell me about a time or a specific moment when you may
have doubted your decision to become involved in the MUSE program.
5. Describe the benefits and challenges of participating in the MUSE program ______
* Participants were given a “Definition of Terms” sheet (Appendix C) for the following
based on the research of Wanca-Thibault (2002).
a. Professionally?
b. Personally?
c. Politically?
Faculty Perspectives 48
Appendix C: Focus Group Definition of Terms
Participating Faculty Perspectives on Teaching in the First-Year Experience Program
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the terms “professionally”, “personally”, and “politically” are
defined as follows:
Personal Effects: Issues of self-awareness and social interaction, which impact
interpersonal relationships
Professional Effects: Issues having to do with an individual’s development as a teacher
and scholar
Political Effects: Perceptions of those in power and the impact of those perceptions on
another individual’s career progress
Wanca-Thibault, M., Shepherd, M., Staley, C. (2002). Personal, professional, and political
effects of teaching a first-year seminar: A faculty census. Journal of the First Year Experience.
14(1) 23-40. Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience
and Students in Transition.
Faculty Perspectives 49
Appendix D: Invitation to Participate
April 12, 2003
MUSE Faculty Member
San José State University
One Washington Square
San José, CA 95192- Ext. Zip
Dear MUSE Faculty member,
My name is Ashley Raggio, and I am currently a graduate student in San José
State University’s Higher Education Administration program. I am also a
Graduate Assistant for the MUSE program. This spring, I am conducting research
for my thesis on Participating Faculty Perspectives on Teaching in the First-Year
Experience Program. I have attached the Research Description which includes
more details.
I am writing because I would like to invite you to participate in a focus group
discussion on your experience in the MUSE program. The discussion will take
place in SPX 107 on May 3, 2004 from 12:00-1:00 PM, and lunch will be
provided.
I have enclosed a copy of a San José State University approved Informed Consent
Form. Please read and complete the form. I will collect the signed consent forms
at the focus group discussion. All participants will remain anonymous and names
will only be used with your express written permission in the appendix as a list of
participants. With your permission, I would also like to audio and visually record
the discussion to ensure the accuracy of your responses.
If you have any questions about this study or the focus group discussion, please
feel free to contact me by phone or e-mail. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ashley Raggio
1318 The Alameda #241
San José, CA 95126
Home: (408) 286-3739
Work: (408) 924-3113
ashley_a_raggio@yahoo.com
Enc:
Research Description
Informed Consent Form
Faculty Perspectives 50
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form
Identification of Project
A study of the MUSE faculty’s perspective on the
effectiveness of the current program
Statement of Age of
Participant
I state that I am over 18 years of age and wish to
participate in a program of research being conducted by
Ashley Raggio in the Department of Education
Leadership at San José State University, San José, CA.
Purpose
Procedures
To understand faculty’s perspective on their experience
helping first-year students achieve the goals of the
MUSE program at San José State University
The procedures include a one-page questionnaire and
focus group discussion. MUSE publications and other
documents will also be used to provide additional data.
The participant will be engaged in one focus group
discussion lasting 1½ hours. The focus groups sessions
will be videotaped and tape-recorded.
Confidentiality
All information collected in the study is confidential
(with the exception of the appendixes which will list the
participants name ONLY if they have provided written
permission to do so). Audio and visual tapes will be
kept in a secure location and properly discarded
following completion of the analysis.
Risks
I understand that there are no risks associated with my
participation in this research.
Benefits, Freedom to
Withdraw and Ask
Questions
I understand that this study is not designed to help me
personally, but that the researcher hopes to learn more
about the experience of MUSE faculty in the program. I
understand that my participation is voluntary and that I
am free to ask questions or to withdraw from
participation at any time without penalty.
Contact Information of
Principal Investigator
Ashley Raggio, 1318 The Alameda #241,
San José, CA 95126, Phone: (408) 286-3739,
E-mail: ashley_a_raggio@yahoo.com
Please initial that you have
read and agree to the above.
Project Advisor
Initial: _____________ Date: ______________
Faculty Perspectives 51
Faculty Advisor
Phyllis Lindstrom, Ed.D. Professor, Department of
Educational Leadership in the College of Education at
San José State University,
San José, CA
Complaint Protocol
Any requests for information about ethical code of
conduct of this project may be addressed to Pam Stacks,
Ph.D., AVP of Graduate Studies and Research at San
José State University by calling (408) 924-2427.
Participant Information:
Printed Name: _____________________________________________________
Signature: __________________________________________ Date: __________
(Optional)
I, ______________________________ give my permission for the researcher to use my real name in the
appendixes of the final documentation of the project as a list of participants. All data within the body of
the study will remain confidential.
Signed: ____________________________________________ Date: __________
(Do not sign if you want your identity kept confidential)
Researcher’s Signature: __________________________________________
Date: _________________
Please sign and return during the focus group meeting.
Thank you for your participation.
Faculty Perspectives 52
Appendix F: Research Description
Participating Faculty Perspectives on Teaching in the First-Year Experience Program
Research Description
Issue
Description
What is the purpose?
To explore and understand faculty perspectives on
their experience helping students achieve the goals of
the first-year-experience MUSE Program at San José
State University. The program goals are (1) to teach
students what it means to be a university scholar, (2)
what it means to be part of a metropolitan university,
and (3) increased retention. Insights from this study
could provide valuable information for making
decisions regarding faculty development for the
program.
Who is doing it?
Ashley Raggio, a Masters student at San José State
University, and a current Graduate Assistant for the
MUSE Program will be conducting this research.
Why were faculty perspectives
selected?
Both former and current MUSE faculty were selected
because the program does not have any data from its
faculty to evaluate achievement of program goals.
What is being studied?
The MUSE faculty perspectives on teaching in the
first-year experience program.
How is this being done?
Case studies of current and former MUSE faculty
using focus groups, surveys, and program
documentation.
What report will be made?
The final product will be a research study, available
through San José State University’s Educational
Leadership Department, open to all study participants
and other interested persons.
Faculty Perspectives 53
References
The American heritage® dictionary of the English language, (2000). Fourth Edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company.
American Psychological Association, (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association. Fifth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, M. and Associates (1993). The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., & Robertson, B.E. (2002) Conversations
with metropolitan university first-year students. Journal of the First-Year Experience.
14(2). 57-88. Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the Freshman Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Gardner, J. (1986). The freshman year experience. College and university. 61(4), 261-274.
Gordon, V. N., & Grites, T. J. (1984). The freshman seminar course: Helping students succeed.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 315-320.
Jacoby, B. (1995). Adapting the institution to the needs of commuter students. In D.M. Johnson
& D.A. Bell (Eds.), Metropolitan universities: An emerging model in American higher
education. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.
Kuh, G., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. (Eds.). (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to
fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications
Inc.
Faculty Perspectives 54
Moore, P. (1993). The political dimension of decision making. In Barr & Associates (Eds.), The
handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 152-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Inc.
Office of University Analysis and Planning Support. University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL.
http://uaps.ucf.edu/metropolitan_definition.html. Viewed on March 23, 2004.
Pacheco, A. (1994). Bridging the gaps in retention. Metropolitan universities: An international
forum, 5(2), 53-60.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schroeder, C. (2003). Supporting the new students in higher education today. Change. 35(2).
55-8.
Thomas, R. O. (1990). Programs and activities for improved retention. In D. Hossler, J. P. Bean
& Associates (Eds.), The strategic management of college enrollments (pp. 186-201). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1996) Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for higher education, 25, 1-6.
Upcraft, M.L., & Gardner, J.N. (1989). The freshman year experience. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Wanca-Thibault, M., Shepherd, M., Staley, C. (2002). Personal, professional, and political
effects of teaching a first-year seminar: A faculty census. Journal of the First Year
Experience. 14(1) 23-40. Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the Freshman
Year Experience and Students in Transition.