Citation
Student engagement and the college experience in hospitality management

Material Information

Title:
Student engagement and the college experience in hospitality management
Creator:
Wray, Michael L
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xviii, 295 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Hospitality industry -- Study and teaching -- United States ( lcsh )
Hospitality industry -- Management -- Study and teaching -- United States ( lcsh )
Student activities ( lcsh )
College students -- Attitudes -- United States ( lcsh )
College students -- Attitudes ( fast )
Hospitality industry -- Management -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Hospitality industry -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Student activities ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Colorado Denver, 2010. Educational leadership and innovation
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 286-295).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michael L. Wray.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
677848073 ( OCLC )
ocn677848073

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
f
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE IN
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
by
Michael L. Wray
BS, Virginia Tech, 1986
MBA, Salisbury University, 1993
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Education Leadership and Innovation
2010


2010 by Michael Lewis Wray
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Michael L. Wray
has been approved
by
John Dienhart


Michael L. Wray (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Student Engagement and the College Experience in Hospitality Management
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Ellen Stevens, Program Advisor
ABSTRACT
Student perceptions of competency in Hospitality Management, (HM) and
the level of engagement in the college experience were compared between two
programs to verify engagement as a construct consisting of three domains;
classroom, campus, and off-campus. Administrator and student descriptions of
engagement in the college experience described the pedagogy, activities, and
experiences that were unique between a four-year public and private college.
A multi-case study design was employed to triangulate quantitative and
qualitative data including student surveys, college catalog descriptions, and
interviews. The three domains were verified using statistical reliability. A survey
of HM competency based upon the top 11 competencies presented by Christou
(2002) was designed to measure student reported competency and the level of
contribution from the three domains.
Results explained the level of student competency and the amount of
contribution of the three domains. The construct validity of the college experience
was best explained by three domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus and was
not improved by additional factors. Student competency did not differ between


programs, however the classroom domain was significantly higher in competency
at a four-year private college where classes where described as fostering
engagement with peers and faculty. Students described effective pedagogy as
involving group interactions, case studies, and discussions.
Engagement in the college experience was a predictor of student
competency in both programs with classroom and off-campus domains predicting
the most competencies. Results were consistent with previous student engagement
literature that identified engagement in college as related to student outcomes.
The most effective domain in contribution to competency was off-campus,
where students were supported by family, spiritual activities, and work experience.
HM-students tended to work in their field that had a direct relationship to concepts
and theories discussed in the classroom. A model was developed that described the
three domains and may be of value to future researchers, administrators, students,
and hospitality managers as they choose to investigate, design, and support the
types of pedagogy, activity, and experiences that relate to competency.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Ellen Stevens


DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother Lorraine, M. Wray, Ed.D. who
in her later years became my mentor, coach, and confidant as I entered the family
business.. .education. As a son of two teachers, my father an art teacher and my
mother a special education principal I feel blessed with their passion for teaching
and their mix of skills and drive to make learning natural and fun. My mother
always had her eye on outcomes of students and found creative ways to connect
classroom, school, and community resources to create learning opportunities. I feel
her spirit with me every day I teach and in each word in this dissertation as I strove
to find out what works for hospitality management students.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I acknowledge those who supported me in thought, word, and deed
throughout my doctoral program. Although my family is on the East Coast, they
have remained an encouraging force in my effort to complete this life achievement.
Im particularly thankful to my Aunt Virginia (Ginny) Wray who has smiled
through the phone as I discuss each new goal I set and how much joy and
frustration occurred from my learning process.
I am grateful for the process of learning with peers and close mentorship
with faculty. I have learned much about the value of working closely with others
and that the best work was done through discussion, encouragement, and support of
one's peers. I am very thankful to my lab cohort partners, (Barbara Bates, Patrick
Lowenthal, and Teri Switzer) and will remain lifelong friends and research partners
with them all.
My committee chair and advisor Ellen Stevens has set a great example of
how a teacher can be a friend, mentor, expert practitioner, and disciplinarian. She
was there to guide and encourage me and found a way to pull me back in line when
I needed it most. Not all teachers find the balance of skills necessary to motivate
others. She was the first teacher to express an interest in me and her commitment
never waned. To her, I am eternally grateful.


To my committee members, I am thankful for your time and encouraging
spirit. I am thankful for Dr. Rodney Muth who was gentle and encouraging when
this study appeared out of reach for me. His unique way of making very difficult
projects seem plausible was timely and accurate. I appreciate Dr. Jeffrey Miller for
providing expert hospitality management leadership and commuting the distance to
Denver to complete interviews and surveys. I am grateful to my friend, colleague,
and employer, Dr. John Dienhart who took a chance on me 18 years ago and hired
a part-time teacher in Ocean City Maryland who so very much wanted to get out of
the restaurant business and into a classroom. Your encouragement and patient
commitment to me over the years has gained my life-long loyalty and respect.
1 am especially thankful for the students who participated in this study. I
appreciate the time that they took to share their opinions and thoughts on what
works for them in college. I will do my best to take what I have learned and share
with others the lessons youve taught me.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES ............................... ...................xv
TABLES ....................................................xvi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................1
Purpose of the Study......................................1
Problem Statement.........................................3
Conceptual Framework......................................7
The HM College Experience..............................8
Concept Diagram........................................9
Student Engagement in HM..............................12
Competency in HM......................................13
Summary...............................................15
Research Questions.......................................16
Methodology..............................................17
Organization of the Dissertation.........................18
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................20
Background...............................................20
National Study on Student Learning Literature............21
Large Scale Student Engagement Literature................23
Forms of Measurement in Large Scale Studies...........27
Qualitative Student Engagement Studies................30
Demonstrating a Need for Study in Hospitality Management.31
Aspects of Student Engagement in HM...................33
Measuring Practical Competency in HM.....................36
Summary..................................................41
3. METHODOLOGY..............................................44
Background...............................................44
Design ..................................................45
Participants.............................................47
ix


Department Chairpersons.......................................48
Student Participants..........................................48
Response Rate.................................................49
Demographic Characteristics...................................49
Ethnographic Characteristics..................................50
Declared Major Characteristics................................50
Student Interview Selection...................................51
Characteristics of Student Interviews......................52
Participant Confidentiality...................................53
Instrumentation..................................................54
Survey Variables..............................................56
Conducting the Interview......................................56
Data Security.................................................57
Student Interview Identities..................................58
Analysis.........................................................58
Frequency reports.............................................58
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of HM Competency Between
Programs...................................................59
Validity of HM Competency Scale...............................59
Validity of HM-student Engagement Construct...................61
Question Two, Relationships of Student Engagement to
Competency....................................................63
Correlation Analysis.......................................64
Assumptions of Multiple Regression............................65
Questions 3-5, Student Engagement Between Schools.............66
Program Descriptions.......................................66
Course Requirements........................................67
Survey Frequency Analysis..................................67
Student Interview Analysis.................................68
Student Interview Frequency in the Classroom Domain........69
Interpreting Inferential Statistics..............................70
Effect Size...................................................71
Limitations of the Analysis...................................71
4. HM COMPETENCY AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE.........................75
Overview of Statistical Methods..................................75
Frequency Reports................................................76
MANOVA of HM Competency Between Programs......................78
Assumptions of MANOVA......................................78
Validity of HM Competency Scale............................79
x


Validity of HM-student Engagement Construct...............79
MANOVA of HM Competency...................................80
MANOVA of Program Difference in the Classroom
Domain....................................................81
MANOVA of Program Difference in the Campus Domain........84
MANOVA of Program Difference from the Off-campus
Domain....................................................86
Relationship of Student Engagement to HM Competency.........86
Predicting Competency by Engagement in the College
Experience................................................87
Summary.....................................................87
HM Competency.............................................89
Predicting HM Competency...............................90
5. THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE DOMAINS.................................92
Overview of Research Methodology...............................92
Student Interview Characteristics...........................93
Classroom Domain...............................................94
Technical College...........................................94
Career College..............................................96
Course Requirements.........................................99
Hotel Management Courses.................................101
Food and Beverage Courses................................102
Events, Recreation, Tourism Courses......................103
Nutrition/Dietetics Courses..............................103
General Business Courses.................................104
General Education Courses................................104
Student Interview Frequency................................105
Classroom Domain Student Descriptions......................106
Case Study...............................................108
Assignments..............................................109
Presentations............................................Ill
Exams....................................................112
Debate and Discussion....................................113
Demonstrations...........................................115
Experiential Labs........................................115
Faculty Interactions.....................................119
Guest Speakers...........................................121
Off-campus Tours.........................................122
Online courses...........................................123
xi


Peer Interactions..........................................124
Lectures...................................................128
Reading....................................................129
Classroom Domain Summary.....................................131
TC Classroom Domain........................................133
Campus Domain....................................................135
Technical College............................................135
Career College...............................................137
Survey Frequency Analysis....................................139
Student Interview Analysis...................................140
Athletics..................................................141
Campus Activities..........................................142
Campus Flousing............................................143
Campus Volunteering........................................144
Faculty Campus Interactions................................145
Faculty Mentoring..........................................145
Fraternity-Sorority Participation..........................146
Peer Interactions..........................................146
Student Clubs..............................................147
Tutoring...................................................151
Campus Domain Summary........................................151
TC Campus Domain...........................................153
Off-campus Domain................................................154
Technical College............................................155
Career College...............................................156
Survey Frequency Analysis....................................157
Student Interviews...........................................157
Electronic Medium..........................................158
Family-Friends.............................................159
Spiritual Activities.......................................161
Volunteer Work.............................................162
Working with Diverse Students..............................163
Work Experience............................................163
Manage Guest Problems with Sensitivity and Care.........164
Develop Positive Customer Relations.....................166
Demonstrate Professional Appearance and Poise...........168
Communicate Effectively both Written and Orally.........169
Achieve Positive Working Relationships with Employees ... 171
Identify Operational Problems...........................174
Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards.............177
Possess Leadership Qualities............................179
xii


Motivate Employees to Achieve Desired Performance.....183
Follow Legal Aspects of Hospitality Operations.........185
Follow Hygiene and Safety Principles...................186
Off-campus Domain Summary...................................188
6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS....................................191
Overview of the Discussion.....................................191
Reliability of the 11 Item Scale and the College Experience....192
Discussion of Question #1......................................194
MANOVA of the College Experience............................195
MANOVA of the Classroom Domain..............................196
MANOVA of the Campus Domain.................................197
MANOVA of the Off-campus Domain.............................198
Program Difference in the College Experience................199
Discussion of Question #2......................................200
Discussion of Question #3......................................204
The Classroom Domain Explained..............................204
College Catalog Program Descriptions......................205
Course Requirements.......................................206
Student Interviews........................................209
Assignments............................................209
Case Study and Discussion..............................210
Experiential labs......................................211
Lectures...............................................211
Off-campus tours.......................................212
Peer interactions......................................212
Summary of Question #3, the Classroom Domain..............213
Discussion of Question #4......................................217
College Catalog Campus Descriptions.........................219
Frequency Reports of Engagement on Campus...................219
Student Interviews Regarding the Campus Domain..............220
Summary of the Campus Domain................................224
Discussion of Question #5......................................226
Off-campus Experiences from Student Interviews..............228
Non-Work Experiences......................................229
Work Experience...........................................230
Customer and employee relations........................230
HM professionalism.....................................231
HM operations..........................................233
Leadership and motivation..............................234
xiii


Summary of the Off-campus Domain.................235
Summary of the College Experience................239
The HM College Experience Model................240
The classroom domain.........................241
The campus domain............................243
The off-campus domain........................243
Implications........................................244
Implications for Students........................245
Implications for Program Administrators..........245
Implications for the HM Industry.................247
Implications for Researchers.....................248
APPENDIX ..................................................250
A. COMPARISON OF COMPETENCIES IN HM IN UK, USA AND
GREECE..............................................250
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT..................................253
C. SCRIPT FOR STUDENT SURVEYS.........................258
D. SCRIPT FOR STUDENT INTERVIEWS......................260
E. TABLE OF VARIABLES AND CODES.......................263
F. FACTOR LOADING FOR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE
CONSTRUCT...........................................266
G. DATA RULES.........................................268
H. ANOVA TABLES.......................................270
I. MULTIPLE REGRESSION TABLES.........................276
J. COURSE REQUIREMENTS BY MAJOR/CONCENTRATION
AND PROGRAM.........................................282
REFERENCES ................................................286
xiv


FIGURES
Figure
1.1 Relationship of the College Experience to HM Competency.............10
3.1 Scree Plot of Three Factors in the College Experience...............62
4.1 Student Reported Competency Chart by Program........................76
4.1 TC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains.................77
4.3 CC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains.................78
xv


TABLES
Table
1.1 Models for student achievement, engagement and the college experience.... 8
1.2 Proposed hospitality management college experience model.................13
1.3 HM Essential Competencies................................................14
2.1 Dependent measures in the NSSE data within three scales..................25
2.2 Relationship of engagement activities, campus environment and
outcomes ...............................................................27
2.3 Rank order of essential competencies for management trainee in different
countries ..............................................................38
2.4 Top three practitioner perceptions of knowledge, skills, and attitudes...39
3.1 Data collection strategies...............................................46
3.2 Participation and response rates.........................................49
3.3 Survey participant demographic characteristics...........................50
3.4 Survey participant ethnographic characteristic frequency.................51
3.5 Survey participant major/minor characteristics...........................52
3.6 Interview participant fields of study....................................53
3.7 Interview participants other descriptive statistics......................53
3.8 Cronbachs alpha for 11 -item scale......................................60
4.1 Mean and Stand Deviations of student self reported HM competency.........82
4.2 Between program effects of HM competency from the classroom
domain .................................................................83
4.3 Parameter estimates of between program differences from the classroom
domain .................................................................85
4.4 Summary of college experiences and program type prediction of HM
competency..............................................................88
5.1 Core course requirements by concentration and supporting courses........100
5.2 Frequency of classroom domain interview respondents by school...........106
5.3 Summary of catalog descriptions, course requirements, and interview
responses for CC.......................................................132
5.4 Summary of catalog descriptions, course requirements and interview
responses for TC.......................................................134
5.5 Survey participant campus and off-campus characteristics by frequency 140
5.6 Frequency of campus domain interview respondents by program.............141
5.7 Summary of catalog descriptions and interview responses for the campus
domain at CC...........................................................152
xvi


5.8 Summary of catalog descriptions and interview responses for the campus
domain at TC.......................................................154
5.9 Frequency of campus domain interview respondents by program.........158
6.1 Hospitality management college experience model.....................241
A.l Comparison of Competencies in HM in UK, USA and Greece..............250
E. l Table of Variables and Codes........................................263
F. 1 Factor Loadings for College Experience Construct....................266
H. 1 Mean and SD of Student Self-Reported HM Competency..................270
H.2 Between Program Effects of HM Competency............................271
H.3 Mean and SD of Contribution from the Campus Domain..................272
H.4 Between Program Effects of HM Competency from the Campus
domain .............................................................273
H.5 Mean and SD of contribution from the off-campus domain..............274
H.6 Between program Effects of HM Competency from the Off-campus
Domain .............................................................275
1.1 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus,
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting managing
guest problem competency......................................276
1.2 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
maintaining positive customer relations competency............276
1.3 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
demonstration of appearance and poise.........................277
1.4 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
communicating orally and in writing...........................277
1.5 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
maintaining employee relations competency.....................278
1.6 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting ability to
identify operational problems competency......................278
1.7 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
maintaining ethical standards competency......................279
1.8 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
demonstrate leadership qualities competency...................279
xvii


1.9 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting ability to
motivate employees competency........................................280
1.10 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
understanding legal responsibilities competency......................280
1.11 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus
and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting
maintaining hygiene and safety competency............................281
J. 1 Hotel management course requirements by institution and percentage of
credit hours...............................................................282
J.2 Food and beverage course requirements by institutional type and percentage
of credit hours............................................................283
J.3 Events recreation, tourism course requirements by institution and percentage
of hours ..................................................................283
J.4 Nutrition/dietetics course requirements by institution and percentage of hours
credit hours...............................................................284
J.5 General business course requirements by institutional type and percentage of
credit hours...............................................................284
J.6 General education course requirements by institution and percentage of credit
hours .....................................................................285
XV1I1


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
As Hospitality Management (HM) programs increase their efforts to attract,
retain, and graduate students prepared to enter society and their career, the types of
activities that engage students and assist them in achieving competency in their
field have become paramount. Large national studies on student engagement did
not focus on HM per-se, but identified instructional practices such as active and
collaborative learning, diversity, and critical thinking pedagogy that contributed to
student engagement and produced positive outcomes on multiple levels (Astin,
1993; Chickering, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Additional studies have
described the importance of student engagement and emphasized the need for
college students to remain engaged in purposeful educational activities such as
reading, writing, and collaborating with peers and faculty (Kuh, Hayek, Carini,
Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001; Kuh, 2003, 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
Student engagement is a complex ecology of learning that occurs both in
and out of the classroom. Therefore, the degree to which HM-students perceives
their level of competency may come from varied types of engaging activities. For
non-specific majors the level of engagement in educationally purposeful activities
has contributed to student outcomes such as grades, staying in school, and


graduation rates (Kuh, 2001, Kuh, Pace, & Vesper, 1997). Further study has
determined that outside activities beyond the classroom contributed to student
outcomes (Chickering, 2006; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Thus, beyond the classroom,
student engagement for HM-students may be a dynamic construct where learning is
enhanced through quality advising and a supportive campus environment with
varied social activities.
While the studies related to student engagement provided rich and
interesting data, none highlighted HM programs and institutions which may differ
in terms of student engagement and other experiences. Furthermore, off-campus
experiences that engage students and provide rich experiences through
volunteerism, work experience, and other activities may help or hinder student
outcomes and may not be present in all degree fields and schools (Kozar, Horton,
& Gregoire, 2005). Thus, the ways in which activities both on and off-campus are
designed to engage students to develop practical competence in their profession
have yet to be explored (Baum, 1991; Christou, 2002; Tas, 1988).
The intent of this study was to gather HM-student perceptions of their level
of engagement in the college experience as composed of three domains, the
classroom, campus, and off-campus. Student perceptions of their level of
competency in HM provided a means to determine how programs differed between
schools and to what degree participation in the college experience domains
predicted competency. The participants in the study included 437 students in two
2


HM programs representing a large non-resident four-year public college, and a
small private residence college.
Problem Statement
Graduating from college has become more about the quality of the
experience and how satisfied students are with their preparedness to enter the
workforce in their chosen profession, and less about where students go to school. A
great body of literature has reported activities that centered on students
engagement with peers and faculty was the best predictor of positive educational
outcomes (Astin, 1984; Astin 1993; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Chickering, 2006;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Studies that used the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) data of more than 80,000 college students showed positive
correlations between student engagement and achievement benchmarks related to
diversity, satisfaction, and student gains at multiple levels (Kuh, et. al 2001; Kuh,
2003. 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
The student engagement studies in the literature identified above were
predominately related to factors of student engagement without looking at a
particular major or field of study. Furthermore, these studies focused on student
outcomes such as perceived gains in general education or overall grades or
retention without examining student practical competency in their field of study.
Although the depth and breadth of research in HM programs has not been as
pervasive as general education, recently the learning environment in HM has been
3


shown to contain similar pedagogy to the student engagement literature. In HM
learning environments students valued educationally purposeful activities such as
social learning and collaborating in groups (Campbell & Evans, 2001; Wickens &
Tripe, 2006). HM-students demonstrated greater participation and interest when
their learning was active and experiential, particularly when involved in internships
and work experience (Dart, 2006; Downey & DeVeau 1998; Lefever & Withiam,
1998; Titz & Wollin, 2002). Additional studies reported that students in HM
programs frequently worked with assigned peers in their freshman year (Capstick
& Fleming, 2002) and their curriculum design benefited from experiential learning
and pedagogy such as problem-based learning (Duncan & Yahya, 2006, LaLopa &
McDonald, 2002).
The body of literature on non-specific majors or general education was
more pervasive than HM programs. Although the HM literature has recently
demonstrated similar types of pedagogy research such as cooperative learning,
team learning, problem-based learning, and experiential learning, the studies
focused on individual course or program efforts and did not demonstrate how the
pedagogy and activities in all three domains of the college experience contributed
to student competency (Downey & Deveau, 1988; Jacobs, LaLopa, & Sorgule,
2001; Kiser & Partlow, 1999; Kline, Frash, & Stahura, 2004; LaLopa & McDonald,
2002; Lefever & Withiam, 1998; Titz & Wollen, 2002). Searches in the literature
4


yielded no results for studies that compare how student engagement in the college
experience and competency may vary amongst institutions or programs.
The student engagement research in non-specific career fields identified
unique differences in the ways that students were engaged in the college
experience. The studies referred to different Carnegie classifications of schools
such as four-year public, private, resident, and nonresident schools. The types of
experiences that enhanced the college experience such as athletics, social groups,
student clubs, campus environment, and classroom pedagogy varied in these
schools, but there were no studies that described how they differed in terms of
student competence in their profession. Additionally, no studies looked at factors
that might have predicted positive student outcomes in HM programs or described
what factors were successful (Astin, 1993; Chickering, 2006; Kuh, 2003, 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
Despite individual course and program efforts to enhance pedagogical
practices that engage students in HM programs, faculty and administrators continue
to work on the quality of students graduating with a hospitality degree and the
effectiveness of their programs. Cheng and Chen (2008) suggested that institutions
possess a rich collection of intangible assets from both teachers and the school as a
whole; such knowledge could be transferred or managed in ways that cultivate
student learning. Indeed, students may gain practical competency from classroom
theory lectures or even virtual simulations (Douglas, Miller, Kwansa, &
5


Cummings, 2007). To ignore aspects of the college experience that occurs in and
out of the classroom would deny students opportunities to demonstrate their
competency in multiple ways. The college experience for HM-students also
includes work experience off-campus. Working off-campus while going to school
may help or hinder their participation in educational purposeful activities (Kozar,
Horton, & Gregoire, 2005). Despite the significant effort that HM programs take to
enhance student competency both on campus and at work, recent studies have
identified training and education needs for graduates that lack management skills
(Tesone, 2003).
This study proposes that the college experience is a complex ecology of
experiences both in and out of the classroom that has yet to be described
adequately. The college experience for HM-students may be composed of three
domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus. The measure of student professional
competency may not be a direct reflection of what they achieved in course
outcomes such as grades or how much they read or wrote papers, but may have
been developed through participation in group activities, work experience or
college social and athletic activities. Without further study that describes the HM
college experience domains and student perceptions of their practical competency,
institutions may lack the information necessary to foster a college experience and
plan a curriculum that provides for competency in the HM field.
6


Conceptual Framework
Students who are involved in educationally purposeful activities in the
classroom and in certain aspects of the college experience have greater academic
achievement (Astin, 1993; Pascarella, Edison, Whitt, Hagedom, Nora, & Terenzini,
1996). The term student involvement is now more widely referred to as student
engagement (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). The types of classroom activities that engage the
student is similar to learning theories that describe learning as occurring as a result
of experience. Student engagement represents a broader construct that scholars use
to explain the relationship between educational purposeful activities and the college
experience on student achievement. Furthermore, factors that are related to student
achievement are identified in cognitive research that describes learning occurring
from engaged students that made connections between previous knowledge and the
context of their current activities and experiences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,
2000).
Table 1.1 identifies three models of educationally purposeful activities that
have emerged from each of the views on learning; student involvement,
experiential learning, and student engagement. These practices such as active and
collaborative learning promote quality interactions with faculty and peers in a
socially supportive way (Bandura, 1986, 2000; Kress & Elias, 2006). Moreover, the
frequency and effort that students invest in these activities contributes toward
student achievement (Astin, 1993). By reviewing the studies on student
7


involvement, engagement, and experiential learning, three models emerged; student
achievement, student engagement, and the college experience. Below the name of
the model is a list of the types of activities that occurred. It also appeared that there
were communalities between the models and that some pedagogy and activities
were not mutually exclusive to a particular model.
Table 1.1
Models for Student Achievement, Engagement, and the College Experience
Student Achievement Student Engagement College Experience
Grades
Credit Hour Production
Retention
Self-reported grades
Self-reported gains
Practical competence
Personal-social growth
Critical thinking
Academic challenge
General studies growth
Problem solving
Institutional value
Active learning
Collaborate with peers
Collaborate with faculty
Student-faculty
interaction
Enriching experiences
Class discussions
Class presentations
Reading and writing
Tutoring
Conduct research
Self inquiry
Problem based learning
Prompt feedback
Supportive campus
environment
Enriching experiences
Volunteerism
Fosters diversity
Faculty advising
Student life activities
Study abroad
Field experience
Work experience
Co-curricular activities
Social activities
Home activities
Campus housing
Note. Derived from Astin (1993) and Zhao & Kuh (2004)
The HM College Experience
The college experience involves activities that generally occur in the
classroom, campus, and off-campus. Table 1.1 presents the types of activities that
8


have been identified in the literature associated with the college experience and
student engagement. These activities included social fraternities, activities related
to work and volunteerism, experiential learning, study abroad or working in diverse
environments (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). It may be possible that in some settings outside
of the classroom activities such as student work experience, assigned field work,
and social activities contributed to their learning. Such relationships may be more
pronounced in the professions, particularly when work experience or volunteerism
might involve the same professional competencies that are taught in the classroom
such as front office management, customer service, and supervision. While the
literature demonstrates the relationship of participation in the college experience
and successful student outcomes, detailed accounts of how such connections
contribute to student success is warranted. The professional studies, such as HM,
may have even stronger connections when outside activities directly relate to what
is taught in the classroom. (Byrne, 2007; Pace, 1990; Pike, Schroeder, & Berry,
1997).
Concept Diagram
Figure 1.1 promotes a pictorial diagram of how students may describe
engagement activities and the college experience. The literature identified
previously pointed to the controllable activities and pedagogy listed along the
arrow on the left of the diagram. The activities extend from student engagement
that occurs on campus toward HM Competency. These activities such as
9


collaboration with peers and faculty may have a strong connection to student
reported gains in practical competency and are generally contained in one area
involving student perceptions of engagement. On campus these items are more
controlled by students themselves, administrators, faculty, and support staff.
Student Perceived
HMCompetency
Diversity
Student Activities
Class work
Collaooration
Faculty Interaction
Student Government
Athletics / /Sy
Student Clubs
Campus
Controlled
Social Networking
Peer Relations
Activities
Work Experience
Spiritual Activities
lergism of Experiences \ "\Family and Friends
Student Perceptions f \ Student Perceptions
of Engagement j \ / / of the Experiences
Activities and / / off-campus that
Pedagogy in class / develop HM
and campus that develop HM Competency V Competency
Figure 1.1 Relationship of the college experience to HM competency
Note. Derived from Slavin, Zhao &. Kuh, (2004). and Whitt, Nora, Edison, Terenzini, Pascarella,
(1999).
On the right side of the diagram is a pictorial description of how students
may view the off-campus college experience. In the off-campus domain, there is
less control by administrators. There may be some coordination of spiritual
activities, social events or work experience through internship. Furthermore, this
10


domain has a similar effect on HM Competency through events listed along the
arrow such as work experience, peer relationships, family, and friends.
This dissertation describes the complex ecology of student engagement for
HM-students as a synergy of both on and off-campus engagement activities.
Although the literature on student engagement describes the relationship of
variables such as engagement pedagogy in the classroom, advising, and student
activities contributing toward student practical competency, less is known how
student perceptions of their programs differ and may relate to their competency in
HM. Both engagement pedagogy in the classroom and experiences on and off-
campus have a synergistic effect on the development of student perception of
practical competency. The circular arrow in the center demonstrates how the
classroom, campus and off-campus domains are a complex construct that
influences student competency. For example, if a class project of working in groups
contributes toward a student perception of collaboration with peers and faculty it
may appear on the left side of the diagram. But if the teacher also integrates class
activities with social groups, fraternities, clubs or work experiences, then the line
between the college experience and classroom pedagogy becomes less clear. These
types of engagement activities may be perceived by students as occurring in either
dimension or as a complex synergy of both.
11


Student Engagement in HM
In the literature related to student engagement, large national studies such as
the National Study on Student Engagement, (NSSE) provided strong evidence that
educationally purposeful activities contributed to student outcomes on multiple
levels (Kuh, 2005. The longitudinal NSSE study has provided a valid form of
measurement that summarized the types of activities that were related to student
outcomes (Kuh, 2001). Table 1.2 presents the types of pedagogy and activities
derived from the NSSE survey. The summary is important because it describes the
types of activities known to be related to student engagement and identifies that the
activities tend to occur in three domains. This study proposes that the types of
activities and pedagogy derived from the NSSE survey will serve as a model for the
HM college experience. The HM College Experience Model contains three
domains, classroom, campus, and off-campus.
Table 1.2 presents some activities that may be more relevant to the types of
courses offered. HM coursework includes laboratory based courses such as food
and beverage. These classes are highly experiential and require students to work in
groups, conduct hands on skill practice and have close interactions with faculty and
peers. Additionally, some HM programs require work experience, internship, and
volunteer activities.
12


Table 1.2
Proposed Hospitality Management College Experience Model
Classroom Campus Off-campus
classroom lectures interaction with peers community projects
classroom presentations tutoring electronic medium
independent study interactions with a cohort (internet, video, podcast, etc.)
comprehensive exams learning community volunteer work
senior research mentoring from faculty diverse coworkers
capstone courses college social activities spiritual activities
diverse student body college or intramural athletics work experience
experiential labs fratemity/sorority social reading
research projects student clubs/activities study abroad
reading campus activities
interactions with faculty student government
interaction with peers debates/discussions interactions with faculty
Note. Derived from Kuh, (2001).
Competency in HM
Significant effort has resulted in literature that provides a means for
measuring competency in HM in very specific fields within hospitality
management such as club management, food and beverage, and others (Breiter &
Hoart, 2000; Dopson, 2004; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin-Yi, 2006; Perdue, Ninemeier, &
Woods, 2000; Perdue, Woods, & Ninemeier, 2005; Tas, LaBrecque, & Clayton,
1996). Tesone and Ricci (2006) presented an alternative assessment of practical
HM competency, but the study lacked specificity to HM and could be applicable to
multiple career fields. The broader career field of HM has the most pervasive
verification of one instrument developed by Tas (1983, 1988) replicated in
international settings (Baum, 1990, 1991; Christou & Eaton, 2000). Table 1.3
presents the 11 essential HM competencies prevalent in HM literature. Christou
13


(2002) analyzed three separate studies in Greece, United Kingdom, and the United
States that used the same competencies to assess how HM businesses and leaders
rated the importance of each competency. The mean scores of the three studies
resulted in the 11 essential competencies are presented in Table 1.3. Since the
Christou (2002) study was the most pervasive in HM literature, it forms the basis of
HM competency analysis in this dissertation.
Table 1.3
HM Essential Competencies
Overall Rank HM Competency M Greece Study Rank UK USA
1 Manage guest problems with understanding and sensitivity 4.87 1 1 1
2 Develops positive customer relations 4.76 3 6 5
3 Demonstrates professional appearance and poise 4.73 2 5 3
4 Communicates effectively both written and orally 4.70 9 3 3
5 Strives to achieve positive working relationships with employees 4.66 4 4 6
6 Identifies operational problems 4.63 8 13 12
7 Maintain professional and ethical standards in the work environment 4.60 6 9 2
8 Possesses needed leadership qualities to achieve organizational objectives 4.59 5 9 7
9 Motivates employees to achieve desired performance 4.57 7 8 8
10 Follows the legal responsibilities associated with hotel operations 4.54 11 : 7 14
11 Follows hygiene and safety regulations to ensure compliance by organization 4.50 13 2 13
Note. From Christou, (2002), p. 27.
14


Summary
Research on student involvement in college has evolved from studies that
indicated an active learning environment contributed toward student outcomes and
persistence to a more complex ecology of engagement that comprises three
domains, the classroom, campus, and off-campus (Astin, 1993; Pascarella, et al.
1996; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). In the classroom domain, experiential activities that
encourage the student to engage with peers and faculty on course objectives
contribute toward student achievement on multiple levels (Bandura, 1986, 2000;
Kress & Elias, 2006). The types of activities that occur on campus such as
participation in clubs, student government, and athletics are also associated with
positive student outcomes (Kellog Commision, 1997; Pace, 1990; Pike, et al.
1997). For HM-students in particular, off-campus activities including volunteer,
family, spiritual activities, and work experiences may present a relevant means to
compliment classroom objectives and directly relate to their HM competency.
While the literature regarding student engagement and HM management
education has demonstrated the types of pedagogy in the college experience as
effective means for improving student outcomes, no studies have made the
connection between student engagement in the college experience and HM
competency (Breiter & Hoart, 2000; Dopson, 2004; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin-Yi, 2006;
Perdue, et al. 2005). There are known competencies considered essential by the
literature, (Baum, 1991; Christou, 2002; Tas, 1983, 1998), but no studies have
15


examined how student engagement in the college experience contributes toward
such competency. Furthermore the college experience for HM-students has not
been defined. The identification of the types of engagement activities in the college
experience that contribute toward student competency have great value to the
stakeholders of graduating students including college administrators, industry
leaders, and the student.
Research Questions
Student engagement in the college experience has been demonstrated as a
complex ecology consisting of three domains, including the classroom, campus,
and off-campus. For HM-students, the college experience remains undefined in the
literature and the degree to which participation in the domains of the college
experience contributes toward their competency is unknown. Despite known
measures for evaluating student level of HM competency, no studies have
examined how students perceive their competency or how their level of
engagement in the college experience contributes toward their competency. Less is
known on how schools differ in their approach to student engagement and the
college experience. With such a vast need for understanding the college experience
in HM programs, this study asked five questions:
1. How do four-year public and private colleges differ in student
perceptions of hospitality management competency?
2. What is the relationship between hospitality management student
perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical
16


competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and a
private college?
3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom
engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and a
private college?
4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus
engagement activities differ between a four-year public and a private
college?
5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus
engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and a
private college?
Methodologv
The methodology in this study was descriptive in nature based upon a
multi-case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a, 2003b). The multi-case approach
allowed for descriptions of participant experiences and used their own descriptions
to describe the phenomenon of the HM college experience (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
The approach included a triangulation (Knafl & Breitmayer, 1989) of three
domains that described the college experience through administrator descriptions,
student surveys, and interviews. The analysis of the data included a mixed method
of both quantitative and qualitative measures.
The analysis of HM competency included descriptive measures of student
perceptions of their level of competency and to what degree participation in the
college experience domains predicted their level of competency. The quantitative
analysis was enhanced through validation measures of the 11 HM competencies
17


forming a reliable scale with internal consistency and factor analysis to validate the
college experience comprised of three domains. Participants included 427 students
in two schools, a 4-year public nonresident college and a 4-year private resident
college. Instrumentation included a survey based upon the 11 HM competencies
presented by Christou (2002) that measured student perceptions of their
competency and contribution from the HM college experience domains.
Quantitative measures from the survey were complimented by 15 student
interviews at both schools.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation comprises six chapters. Chapter 1 includes the purpose of
the study, conceptual framework, research questions, and an overview of the
research methodology. Chapter 2 explores the relevant literature on student
engagement in the HM college experience and develops an understanding of the
types of activities that contribute toward student development. Chapter 3 is a
description of the research methods in the multi-case study design. The
participants, instrumentation, procedures, and analysis are presented. Chapter 4 is
the first of two results chapters. The first results chapter addresses the first two
research questions through quantitative analysis. This chapter presents student
perceptions of their level of HM competency and the predictability of competency
from participation in the college experience domains. Chapter 5 discusses the
college experience and addresses the last three research questions through a
18


triangulation of qualitative data related to the college experience domains;
classroom, campus, and off-campus. Chapter 6 contains the conclusions of the
study, implications to stakeholders, and suggestions for future research.
19


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Background
In John Deweys influential text Democracy and Education (1916) he
argued for an education system that would prepare students for their place in
society. Such education cannot take place by direct conveyance of beliefs,
emotions, and knowledge. It takes place through the intermediary of the
environment (p. 26). He recognized that students came from diverse backgrounds
and experiences. The previous experience remained a part of the learning process,
whereas knowledge occurred in reflection of prior experiences. When he wrote
about the importance of learning through experience and reflection Dewey
influenced future educational researchers that developed modem studies on student
engagement. In his later research he promoted a more progressive educational
system that he considered development from within (Dewey, 1938, p. 17). In the
ideal learning classroom he described a type of learning that develops environments
that foster experiences for learners rather than pontificate knowledge from experts
through lecture.
Today we have specific career fields in college that not only prepare
students for society, but specific career fields such as HM. In these programs
students are learning similarly to the way that John Dewey described. The complex
20


ecology of the classroom, campus, and off-campus domains develops student
competency in their profession through various means. Students likely develop
competency in HM through a reflection of experiences not only in the classroom,
but through their work and activities on and off-campus. In this chapter the
literature associated to the modem student engagement literature is explored. The
discussion includes large scale studies in student engagement that were in non-
specific career fields, pedagogy in HM, and means to measure HM competency.
The purpose therefore is to present a framework of study that is grounded in
empirical research. Furthermore, the literature presented here will provide a means
of comparison for the results of the dissertation and the implications for future
research.
National Study on Student Learning Literature
In the early 1990s student engagement began to emerge as a term to
describe the student learning experience (Astin, 1993). The studies and major
textbooks identified in The National Study on Student Learning (NSSL) examined
Astins involvement theory by tracking freshman in a four-year longitudinal study
on outcomes associated with cognitive and affective development (The Kellog
Commission & National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
on the Future of State and Land Grand Universities, 1997). The results confirmed
that the most important forms of involvement were academic involvement.
21


involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups (Astin, 1984,
1993, Kellog Commission, 1997).
Pascarella et al. (1996) used the NSSL data to explain the relationship
between student engagement in first year experience programs and cognitive
development. The authors were concerned that students who came from varied
preparation levels, motivations, and genders might have caused inconsistent
responses between survey participants. The study hypothesized that under prepared
students might achieve more due to the pedagogies that enhanced the student
experience particularly when they learn in a social way with support and
collaboration with peers and teachers. Results however indicated little difference in
student performance despite their background or preparedness in college or where
they went to school.
Along with the identification of the relationship of student engagement to
cognitive development the NSSL studies represented the connection of student
engagement to retention, namely the financial and social costs of losing students
due to dropping out (Tinto, 1993). Some of the causes and cures of student attrition
(leaving college) and persistence (staying in college and credit hour achievement)
pointed directly at the social and intellectual facets of the student experience in the
first year (Tinto, 1987, Tinto & Goodsell, 1994). Follow-up studies served to
22


promote engagement pedagogy as they related to student attrition and persistence
(Tinto, 1998, 2002).
The Carnegie Foundation (1998) responded to studies on student
involvement and retention and called for institutions to address the lack of student
engagement in the college experience. The study was initiated by the Boyer
Commission resulting in a commonly used description as the Boyer Report
(Katkin, 2003; McDonald, Brown & Littleton, 1999). Over the next decade the
Boyer Report was seen as the impetus for the creation, maintenance and evaluation
of varied pedagogies that enhance the student experience such as Freshman-year
Interest Groups, (FIGs) learning communities, and collaborative learning
(Stoneybrook Reinvention Center, 2001).
Large Scale Student Engagement Literature
Following the Boyer Report much was unknown about the ways in which
student engagement related to student outcomes. The report recommended an
increase in longitudinal, qualitative, and multi-campus approaches to documenting
the student experience and how student engagement related to outcomes. Kuh
(2001) responded to the Boyer Report by conducting the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE). The study remains as the largest longitudinal study
on student engagement (Kuh, 2003, 2005). The NSSE survey began with 275
institutions in 2000, but currently involves more than 800 institutions. The survey
23


measures student perceptions of their frequency and effort in educationally
purposeful activities both in and out of the classroom. The survey is a quantitative
analysis that demonstrates that educationally purposeful activities are related to
student outcomes, but it lacks rich qualitative descriptions of how and why the
phenomenon of student engagement contributes to beneficial student outcomes
(Kuh, 2001, Kuh et al. 2001; Kuh, Pace & Vesper, 1997).
Zhao & Kuh (2004) used the NSSE data to examine the relationship
between activities that engage the student and outcomes. The study recognized that
students come to college with varied backgrounds and level of preparation. Once in
college they participated in class activities as well as activities on campus. Both the
in and out of class experiences were thought to contribute to student outcomes.
Unique to this study was a large data set involving 365 four-year colleges and
80,479 respondents that controlled for the level of student preparation compared to
less prepared students. The study used variables from the student engagement
literature, such as time spent studying, engaging with peers, faculty or social
activities to explain what types of educationally purposeful activities contributed to
successful outcomes, regardless of their level of preparation. The most significant
value of the study was the identification of dimensions of student engagement and
three measures of self-reported outcomes. Table 2.1 identifies the three scales of
24


student engagement. The table also lists the types of activities that may identify
measurable dimensions of student engagement and the college experience.
Table 2.1
Dependent Measures in the NSSE Data Within Three Scales
Three Scales of Student Engagement
Engagement Activities
1. Academic effort
2. Higher order thinking skills required in the courses
3. Academic integration
4. Active and collaborative learning
5. Interaction with faculty members
6. Diversity-related experiences
Quality of Campus Environment
1. Quality of academic advising experiences
2. Supportive campus environment (academic and social support, quality of relations with
peers, faculty members, and administrators
3. Satisfaction with the overall college experience
Student Outcomes
1. Gains in personal and social development
2. Gains in general education
3. Gains in practical competence
Note. From Zhao and G. Kuh (2004), p. 123.
Prior to the development of the three dimensions in Table 2.1, related
literature identified a need to demonstrate what types of pedagogy were
contributing to student engagement (Cabrera, Nora, Bemai, Terenzini, &
Pascarella, 1998; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Pascarella, et al. 1996; Slavin,
1995; Whitt, 1999). More recently, Zhao and Kuh (2004) developed and validated
25


scales that address the connection between pedagogy and student reported personal
gains and perceptions of the quality of the campus environment. The study lacked
the ability to randomly assign students into groups, so the researchers set controls
for student preparation measured by SAT/ACT scores and other indicators of
potential academic success. The results in Table 2.2 indicate that student
engagement was linked with student academic performance, engagement and
satisfaction.
The three scales of student engagement identified in Table 2.2 were useful
for identifying which dependent variables such as engagement and satisfaction
contributed to student outcomes, but did not single out a particular field of study.
The results provided specific connections by revealing correlations between student
engagement and the college experience on the three student outcomes; gains in
personal and social development, gains in general education, and gains in practical
competency. Furthermore, the study did not identify what domains in the college
experience that contributed toward student outcomes, nor was there a measure of
competency as a student. For this dissertation one of the learning outcomes
identified by Zhao & Kuh (2004), gains in practical competency, will serve as
potential outcome for HM-students, referred to as HM Competency.
26


Table 2.2
Relationship of Engagement Activities, Campus Environment and Outcomes
First-Year Senior
Measure Standardized Regression Coefficient Effect Size Standardized Regression Coefficient Effect Size
Engagement Activities
Academic Efforts 0.157* 0.32 0.120* 0.28
Higher Order Thinking 0.201* 0.40 0.151* 0.35
Academic Integration 0.193* 0.39 0.164* 0.38
Active and Collaborative Learning 0.264* 0.53 0.237* 0.54
Interactions with Faculty 0.299* 0.60 0.224* 0.51
Diversity Experiences 0.205* 0.41 0.156* 0.36
Campus Environment
Quality of Academic Advising 0.118* 0.23 0.076* 0.17
Supportive Campus Environment 0.186* 0.37 0.141* 0.32
Satisfaction 0.126* 0.25 0.101* 0.23
Learning Outcomes
Gains in Personal and Social 0.239* 0.48 0.175* 0.40
Gains in Practical Competence 0.224* 0.45 0.157* 0.36
General Education Gains 0.181* 0.36 0.105* 0.24
* pc.OOl, (Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
Forms of Measurement in Large Scale Studies
In the literature related to student engagement in large national studies
identified earlier, there was strong evidence that educationally purposeful activities
contributed to student outcomes on multiple levels. The substantial efforts of NSSL
and NSSE included vast numbers of students, some of which were HM-students.
27


However, less research demonstrated qualitatively the rich stories and descriptions
from students that identify the types of activities that have contributed to their level
of practical competency in the HM field.
The longitudinal NSSE study has provided a valid form of measurement
that summarized the types of activities that were related to student outcomes.
Clearly, student engagement was related to student outcomes, but less was known
of how such relationships occurred. The researchers gauged the relationship of
student engagement to outcomes by developing five benchmarks in their
conceptual framework (Kuh, 2001). One of those benchmarks for example was
active and collaborative learning. To measure how collaborative efforts in school
contributed to their development the survey asked respondents to rate the frequency
of participating in activities such as working with students in and out of class,
tutoring or discussing ideas outside of class with a faculty member. The frequency
of such activities was recorded on a Likert-type scale from very often to never.
Each of the self-reported activities represented a variable that in combination with
other activities formed a scale to measure the level of active and collaborative
learning.
The quantitative analysis of the NSSE survey validated the combination of
collaborative items in a scale and examined the relationship that occurred between
scaled benchmarks and outcomes such as self reported grades, persistence in school
or other purposeful activities. These statistical results provided strong connections
28


between purposeful engagement activities and student outcomes, but lacked the
stories that explained how student engagement occurred, what value they were to
the student and how the student perceived that engagement activities contributed to
their competency in their field of study. Therefore the NSSE survey functioned as a
validated form of measurement for known activities that contributed to positive
student outcomes, but lacked qualitative data within the same set of respondents.
The study was further limited by an absence of a student voice to explain how such
engagement activities contributed to their level of competency (National Study of
Student Engagement, 2009).
For the purpose of this dissertation the value of the NSSE survey is that it
validates the types of activities that contributed to student engagement in three
general areas; a) classroom and laboratory pedagogy, b) sponsored campus
activities and c) off-campus work experience and social activities. Table 1.2
identified previously in Chapter 1 represents the general areas that were derived
from the NSSE survey. The summary is valuable to this dissertation because it
describes the types of activities known to be related to student engagement and
identifies that the activities tend to occur in three domains in the college
experience, classroom, campus, and off-campus. By summarizing the activities in
three domains students may be queried to gain their perceptions of engagement
activities in the HM college experience. The list of activities can also benefit the
development of in-depth interview questions given to students to draw out their
29


perceptions of what activities contributed to their level of practical competency in
the field and how such activities fostered their development.
Qualitative Student Engagement Studies
Not all of the student engagement literature was purely quantitative. To
provide qualitative data that connects student engagement to learning the
Association for Higher Education sponsored a study of the 80,000 respondents in
the NSSE data to find out what effective colleges do to promote success. In 2002,
Project DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice) looked at institutions
with higher-than-predicted graduation rates and top results in five benchmarks.
This study was unique in that the thorough examination of qualitative measures
such as administrative reports, interviews, and observations indicated that
institutions had similarities and differences in the types of activities that engaged
students both in the classroom and on campus. The researchers visited 20 schools
and examined both quantitatively and qualitatively why the schools achieved more
than most (Kuh, 2005). The researchers did not focus on any specific type of
school; instead they looked at small, large, urban, rural, historically black, majority
white, commuter and residential, and non-research institutions. The study
confirmed that each of the types of schools shared common characteristics.
However, none of the analysis included a specific professional competency
30


measurement in the achievement of students or how their engagement activities and
the college experience contributed toward successful outcomes.
Demonstrating a Need for Study in Hospitality Management
While the large national studies such as NSSL, NSSE, and DEEP have
examined traditional schools and provided a valid instrument for measuring the
relationship of student engagement to outcomes, there is no evidence of connecting
student engagement to professional competency in HM. For this reason a need
emerges to examine the phenomenon student engagement in the HM college
experience. Furthermore, schools may differ in their design of the college
experience. The large scale student engagement studies frequently controlled for
different institutional types in their quantitative analysis. The current need is to
compliment the quantitative measures of student engagement and their contribution
to HM competency with qualitative descriptions of the domains in the college
experience. By describing the ways in which schools structure programs and design
pedagogy and learning environments to foster valuable student outcomes much will
be learned about how the college experience relates to student perceptions of their
competency in HM. These pedagogy, activities, and experiences that occur in the
domains of the college experience represent a phenomenon that may be highly
related to professional competency. Searches in the literature revealed no studies
that demonstrated how activities that engaged students such as collaborating with
31


peers, time spent writing papers, outside work experience, and social groups related
to their professional competency.
Much of the student engagement research did not address a specific
professional competency, rather it focused on student gains in general education
and performance factors such as grades or gains in general education. Such
outcomes did not indicate the level of preparation students had for one particular
profession or role in society. However, we have a long history of educating
students for professions such as accounting, hospitality management, medicine, and
law. In many of these types of programs students also engage in groups that have
highly active and experiential labs and take classes in a cohort. Such engaging
activities have contributed much to the student outcomes in schools that
participated in large national studies, but no evidence was found in the literature on
how such engaging activities contributed to their professional competency.
The types of institutions that commonly have HM programs are similar to
the Carnegie types described in the NSSE study (Kuh, 2001). Of the nine Carnegie
types, four general types of institutions emerge as important to this study. They
were public and private four-year colleges, and resident and non-resident colleges.
The other categories represent variations of these types such as high and moderate
level research institutions which offer graduate degrees and associate degree
programs.
32


Aspects of Student Engagement in HM
HM programs offer experiential classrooms that are highly engaging for the
student. The literature on student engagement did not specifically target such
experiential career fields. HM programs vary in the types of majors or
concentrations of study. Common to the field is concentrations in hotel, food and
beverage, events, tourism, nutrition, parks, recreation, sports, and institutional
management. The types of courses in these programs often include laboratory
based courses such as culinary arts, beverage management, and dining room
services. These classes are highly experiential and require students to work in
groups, conduct hands on skill practice and have close interactions with faculty and
peers.
The type of classroom pedagogy and campus activities that are controllable
by HM administrators and faculty were described in the HM literature as requiring
an active collaborative environment that is learner centered. Dale and McCarthy
(2006) used focus groups to determine that learner preferences varied amongst
HM-students. These differences created pedagogic challenges for academic staff
because HM classroom pedagogy often involves students collaborating in groups.
Dart (2006) described teaching and group learning strategies that were designed to
increase attendance and contribution. To improve performance the researcher
introduced group presentations into the curriculum. Results indicated that students
remained more engaged and contributed more in class when they were involved in
33


group work. The dynamic of working in groups was also investigated by Capstick
and Fleming (2002) where he proposed a design for HM-students from the second
year to mentor first year students. With peer learning support and working in
groups, students were reported to assist one another in the development of
knowledge.
Learning in groups employs a cooperative learning strategy that causes
people to interact together to accomplish course content, which can be problematic
if some group members dont contribute. Kline, Frash, and Stahura, (2004)
investigated social loafing within a HM course to determine if implementing peer
evaluation reduced student perceptions of their peers loafing or not contributing to
the group assignment. Results indicated that peer evaluations did not diminish the
level of social loafing. Therefore, for educators planning classroom pedagogy it is
important to vary activities and monitor group work to ensure it is beneficial to all
learning styles.
Some educators are beginning to use pedagogy common to other fields that
have demonstrated success in HM. Chang and Chien (2006) demonstrated that
Problem-Based-Leaming (PBL) enhanced a culinary arts course by emphasizing
science theory to improve learning. By integrating PBL into the classroom learners'
motivation improved, but not competency. It also improved teamwork and
communication amongst peers. The researchers pointed to needs to improve the
design of the PBL assignments. Other researchers in HM have described how such
34


assignments and course activities could have been organized more similar with
PBL literature, (LaLopa & McDonald, 2006). Duncan and Yahya (2006) described
the advantages and disadvantages of implementing PBL in a sports management
course. Conclusions determined that good activity design demonstrated potential
for students to enjoy their coursework and remain engaged compared to traditional
lecture.
Pedagogy such as group work and PBL are highly experiential and similar
to the pedagogy described in the student engagement literature that relates to
student outcomes. Administrators design the experiential pedagogy in the
classrooms and laboratories to closely develop student competency. Kiser and
Partlow (1999) described how entrenched experiential learning is in the HM
curriculum. The sample included 100 HM programs and examined course content
that was experiential in nature. Results indicated that 95% of programs had
mandatory courses that included experiential learning components. Although
programs varied in the level of activities, experiential learning was a pervasive
pedagogy in course content.
For the off-campus domain some HM programs demonstrated a loose
control over learning by requiring work experience, internship and even volunteer
activities. These off-campus experiences may not be as controllable as experiences
that occur on campus and may conflict with their study time. Kozar. Horton, and
Gregoire (2009) investigated how HM-students spent their time during the school
35


week. Results indicated that most students worked while going to school and that
the more time they spent working the less time they spent studying and going to
class. Although the study determined that student engagement in school was less if
students worked while going to school, the study did not measure the level of
student competency. Students may still learn in multiple domains of the college
experience, especially when work experience mirrors the course objectives.
With the varied pedagogic approaches to organizing the HM classroom,
faculty and administrators require additional awareness of how campus activities
and off-campus experiences contribute to their competency. Searches in the HM
literature revealed no studies that view the college experience as a whole and
describe how the domains in the college experience contribute to HM competency.
Cheng and Chen (2008) suggested that institutions have a broader collection of
assets than they may know of. The assets include teachers and the school as a
whole that work to cultivates student growth. New pedagogy continues to emerge
such as virtual simulations which have been demonstrated as valuable means of
explaining course content (Douglas, et al. 2007). But a great need remains to
describe the college experience for HM-students and determine how the domains of
the college experience contribute to their competency.
Measuring Practical Competency in HM
Various measures for practical competency in HM have been proposed. In
most cases researchers surveyed a combination of faculty, administrators, and
36


industry leaders to gain a sense of agreement of characteristics, measurable
objectives, and competencies that a student should attain before graduation. Of
these measures some focused on specific concentrations within the hospitality field
such as food and beverage, hotel management, property management, e-commerce,
information technology, and club management (Baum, 1990; Breiter & Hoart,
2000; Buergermeister, 1983; Chan & Coleman, 2004; Dopson, 2004; Fjelstul,
2007; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin-Yi, 2006; Kay & Russette, 2000; Perdue, et al. 2000;
Perdue, Woods, & Ninemeir, 2005; Tas, LaBrecque, & Clayton, 1996). These
measures would not serve comparisons of the HM field as a whole nor would they
be appropriate when comparing program differences because they were too specific
in nature. Tas (1983, 1988) developed the most widely used instrument to gauge
HM competency. The measure was a result of an unpublished doctoral dissertation
that determined competencies for entry level hotel management trainees in the
United States. The study was replicated with minor changes to the wording of the
competencies in the United Kingdom (Baum, 1991) and in Greece (Christou &
Eaton, 2000).
The types of competencies considered essential to each study identified
above were discussed by Christou (2002) to identify similarities and differences in
expert rankings of HM competency in the three studies. The top 11 competencies
considered essential by the three studies appears in Table 2.3. The expanded 36
37


competencies are presented in Appendix A. The remaining competencies
represented much more general characteristics that HM graduates should master.
Table 2.3
Rank Order of Essential Competencies for Management Trainees in Different
Countries
Rank Order Competencies Mean Greece UK USA
1 Manages guest problems with understanding and sensitivity 4.87 1 1 1
2 Develops positive customer relations 4.76 3 6 5
3 Demonstrates professional appearance and poise 4.73 2 5 3
4 Communicates effectively both written and orally 4.70 9 3 3
5 Strives to achieve positive working relationships with employees 4.66 4 4 6
6 Identifies operational problems 4.63 8 13 12
7 Maintain professional and ethical standards in the work environment 4.60 6 9 2
8 Possess needed leadership qualities to achieve organizational objectives 4.59 5 9 7
9 Motivates employees to achieve desired performance 4.57 7 8 8
10 Follows the legal responsibilities associated with hotel operations 4.54 11 7 14
11 Follows hygiene and safety regulations to ensure compliance by organization 4.50 13 2 13
Note. From Christou, (2002), p. 27.
Tesone and Ricci (2006) developed another measure of practical
competencies for entry-level hospitality workers. The study was similar to the
competencies described by Christou (2002) and resulted in general competencies
38


that were applicable to HM, but not necessarily unique to HM. The Tesone & Ricci
study was important because the scale was validated by maximum likelihood
estimation to extract factors of professional competency. Three factors emerged
that explained 74.08% of all of the variable variances. Table 2.4 identifies the top
three competencies in each of the factors that emerged from the analysis;
knowledge, skills, and ability, and attitude (Tesone & Ricci, 2006). The expanded
analysis includes additional competencies, but like Christou (2002) the results are
general competencies that may not represent all of the valuable skills an entry level
employee brings to their job.
Table 2.4
Top Three Practitioner Perceptions of Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes
Rank Competency N Mean Standard Deviation
Knowledge
1 Knowledge of grooming and professional image standards 155 4.43 .83
2 Knowledge of guest services standards 156 4.28 .82
3 Knowledge of the realities involved in this type of work Skills and Ability 156 4.11 .94
1 Ability to work as part of a team 155 4.57 .73
2 Effective listening, verbal and written communication skills 155 4.51 .70
3 Ability to project a professional image Attitude 156 4.50 .73
1 Takes personal pride in satisfying the needs of others 154 4.31 .76
2 Prefers helping others before satisfying the needs of the self 154 4.23 .79
3 Tendency to move toward possibilities, as opposed to avoiding negative outcomes 155 4.18 .83
Note. From Tesone and Ricci (2006), p. 59.
39


To develop the types of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for future
HM managers Tesone and Ricci (2006) surveyed members of the Central Florida
Hotel and Lodging Association to determine job competency expectations that
hospitality managers should have upon graduation. The study built upon previous
literature identified earlier and others that described hospitality competency in four
general areas of knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (Chung-Herrera, Enz &
Lankau, 2003; Lin, 2002). Similar to previous work, the researchers used industry
experts and focus groups to develop a pilot questionnaire. The experts screened low
rated competencies and the final survey was submitted to the larger set of
respondents (n = 156).
In the literature related to HM competency the major results of the studies
were to develop an instrument to measure competency, whether in specific fields or
the broader hospitality career field. The studies shared similarities in that they
interviewed expert panels, students, and industry leaders to improve validity of the
instruments. However, none of these studies used the instruments to gauge
employee skills or competency. Furthermore, they often recommended that
institutions use the instruments to devise curriculum changes and course activities
that foster the development of the competencies. Not a single study measured
student perceptions of how they may have achieved on such competency
assessments nor did they explain student perceptions of how activities that engaged
them in the classroom and the college experience contributed to such outcomes.
40


The studies in specific career fields such as club management and e-
commerce mentioned earlier have competencies that are to specific to a particular
major or concentration and would not serve as a way to measure a HM program
with multiple concentrations. Therefore to maintain a reasonable scope to this
dissertation and include competencies that have meaning to multiple concentrations
within the field, the 11 essential competencies become the form of measurement for
student perceptions of HM competency.
Summary
Student engagement describes a learning construct that explains the
constructivist nature of connections between purposeful engaging activities and
student achievement. Student achievement which in part represents learning,
evolves from student reflection on their experiences not simple experience itself.
The purposeful activities promote increases in student time and effort collaborating
with peers, faculty and full integration into the college experience. Through such
experiences students increase their level of social learning and have more positive
interactions (Astin, 1993; Dewey, 1938; Tinto, 1993).
Some studies are beginning to demonstrate significant tangible and intrinsic
connections of student engagement to achievement on multiple benchmarks (Kuh,
2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). More study is needed that adds rich qualitative data on
the structure of these communities and how the engagement pedagogy contributes
to student achievement and value in the college experience. No studies examine
41


highly experiential programs such as HM. These programs have students that are
engaged in varied pedagogy in the college experience, but no studies explain how
such activities relate to their practical competency in HM (Capstic & Fleming
2002; Chang & Chien, 2006; Dart, 2006).
Significant effort has resulted in HM literature that provided a means for
measuring practical competency in HM. Some of this effort was in specific fields
within HM such as club management, food and beverage, and others (Breiter &
Hoart, 2000; Dopson, 2004; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin-Yi, 2006; Perdue, et al. 2000;
Perdue, et al. 2005; Tas, et al. 1996). The broader career field of hospitality has the
most pervasive verification of one instrument developed by Tas (1983, 1988) and
replicated in international settings (Baum, 1991; Christou & Eaton, 2000). Tesone
& Ricci (2006) presented an alternative assessment of practical HM competency,
but lacked specificity to HM and could be applicable to multiple career fields. No
study measured student perceptions of their competency or explained how they
perceived their college activities and experiences as contributing to specific
competency in their chosen career field. Additionally, no studies described the
different types of hospitality schools and how experiences at those schools may
have differed in student perceptions of practical competency in HM.
As colleges attempt to compete in the current climate of accountability
(Hunt, Carruthers, Callan, Ewell, & National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2006) such research will help institutions prioritize their limited
42


resources. To assist the field in understanding how HM programs differ in terms of
the pedagogical practices of student engagement and the college experience this
dissertation investigates how these experiences relate to student perceptions of their
practical competency in HM.
43


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Background
The intent of this study was to gather student perceptions of competency in
HM, examine how HM programs among institutional types differed in terms of
student perceptions of engagement activities in the classroom, campus, and off-
campus domains, and to describe how such engaging activities contributed toward
self-reported gains in competency in HM. To this end, five research questions were
posed:
1. How do four-year public and private colleges differ in student
perceptions of hospitality management competency?
2. What is the relationship between hospitality management student
perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical
competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and a
private college?
3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom
engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and a
private college?
4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus
engagement activities differ between a four-year public and a private
college?
5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus
engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and a
private college?
44


The identification of the types of activities that engaged students in the
classroom, campus, and off-campus domains relied upon an examination of official
school documents, a written survey of student reported level of competency in HM,
and student interviews. The analysis was consistent with a multi-case study design
(Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a, 2003b). The multi-case approach allowed me to develop
descriptions of participant experiences and use their own descriptions to describe
the phenomenon (see Figure 2) in a constructivist approach (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
According to Yin (2003 a) case study was appropriate for the types of how and
why questions that occurred in the research questions described above.
Design
The methodology included a triangulation (Creswell, 2008; Knafl &
Breitmayer, 1989) of three domains that described the college experience and
student perceptions of practical competency in HM. Table 3.1 identifies the
triangulation of qualitative and quantitative measures used to address the first three
research questions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The last two research questions were
addressed in quantitative measures. The first of three areas of data collection was
an examination of the official college catalog that included descriptions of the
college mission statement, program major and minor descriptions, campus
facilities, and course descriptions. The descriptions of the three departments and
campus programs identified what types of classroom and sponsored campus
programs were available to students. Further analysis of qualitative and quantitative
45


data was necessary to understand to what degree students participated in and valued
such engagement activities and programs.
Table 3.1
Data Collection Strategies
Research Questions Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods
1. How does a four-year public and private college differ in student perceptions of hospitality management competency? MANOVA
2. What is the relationship between hospitality management student perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and private college? Hierarchal Linear Regression
3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and private college'? College Catalog Student Interviews Survey Frequency Course Requirements Interview Frequency
4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus engagement activities differ between a four-year public and private college? College Catalog Student Interviews Survey Frequency Interview Frequency
5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and private college? College Catalog Student Interviews Survey Frequency Interview Frequency
To describe the types of activities that students participated in and their self-
reported perceptions of practical competency in HM-students at each school
46


completed a survey (Appendix B). The survey included a measure of level of
contribution that students perceived occurred from the three domains of the HM
college experience model identified in Table 1.2; classroom, campus, and off-
campus. Additional data included descriptions of the college experience in each
program and interviews with students (Nealy, 1992).
Participants
To assist in the process of interviewing students, administrators, faculty,
and examining records I gained human subject approval at two western schools
(Career College and Technical College). The names of these schools were changed
to protect their identity as prescribed by the research protocol approved by each
school. I purposely selected these schools because they represented Carnegie types
in the student engagement literature discussed in Chapter 2 (Miles & Huberman,
1994). By purposefully sampling these schools I obtained a representation of a
public and private school, large and small school, and a resident and non-resident
school which represented six of the nine Carnegie types.
The first of two schools in this study was Technical College (TC) a large
four-year public college. This school was an urban commuting only campus that
had 499 full-time students studying HM. Career College (CC) was selected because
it represented a small private residence college. The program had fewer overall
students (220) and residence halls. Because CC was a residence college students
that lived on campus may have had a dramatically different campus experience than
47


commuting students. The school had highly sophisticated laboratories and an active
internship program to provide outside work experience.
Department Chairpersons
The department Chairperson from the HM department at each school was
asked to provide an official school catalog and basic student demographics. I
summarized the materials into a program description and invited each
representative to review the summary for accuracy thereby enhancing content
validity. The descriptions were important because they represented the types of
opportunities available to students in the college experience domains that may have
contributed to their professional competency.
Student Participants
For the student survey I conducted paper surveys directly with students in
assigned courses at each school. I consulted with the department chairperson to
identify courses that had a high concentration of students majoring in HM. The
intent was to purposefully sample (Miles & Huberman, 1994) students that were
majoring in HM. To improve consistency among the respondents, students with
similar majors within fields of HM were included in the study; hospitality
management, hotel management, food and beverage management, events
management, tourism, and nutrition. Students that had a major outside of the
hospitality field such as business or nursing were not included in the analysis.
48


Response Rate
To understand the types of participants and the characteristics of persons in
this study I calculated frequency of various demographics and overall response rate.
Initially there were some participants that were not majors in a hospitality related
field, so they were removed from the statistical analysis. Table 3.2 indicates the
number of respondents per school and the response rate. The number of participants
was N = 437 with an overall response rate of students majoring in a hospitality field
of 51.6% which exceeded the suggested 36% or above for statistical research
(Baruch, 1999). Furthermore, there was similar group size with TC having an
N- 238 and CC with an 7V=199. Priori estimates of power of 76 in each group were
exceeded indicating that the sample size was high enough to gain significance from
the data.
Table 3.2
Participation and Response Rates
School Total Participants Total HM Majors Response Rate
TC 238 499 47.7
CC 199 348 57.2
Total 437 847 51.6
Demographic Characteristics
To further understand the participants in this study and how their group
characteristics might have affected the college experience domains I calculated
49


several demographic reports for the participants in the study. For some of the
questions such as age, gender, race or grades, participants chose not to answer. I
included only respondents that answered questions, so the number of participants
per school varied by category. Table 3.3 describes the demographics of the
participants by school. The two schools were similar in all demographic
characteristics with the exception of age where TC had a slightly higher average
age (N = 24.5) compared to CC (N = 21.6).
Table 3.3
Survey Participant Demographic Characteristics
Schoo 1 N Male Female Age Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior GPA
TC 238 51 187 24.5 13 46 100 71 3.34
CC 199 77 122 21.6 23 38 41 97 3.30
Total 437 128 209 26.4 36 84 141 168 3.32
Ethnographic Characteristics
Table 3.4 indicates that the ethnicity of participants at both schools was
similar. CC had a slightly higher overall percentage of non-white students (25.9%)
compared to TC (17.8%).
Declared Major Characteristics
The types of majors included in this study were chosen because of their
relevance in the hospitality industry and an attempt to have similar majors between
programs. If a respondent indicated that they were a major outside of hospitality,
hotel, food and beverage, events, tourism, sports, or nutrition they were excluded
50


Table 3.4
Survey Participant Ethnographic Characteristic Frequency
School N Native American Asian Black White Hispanic Other Non- White Percent
TC 236 2 9 3 179 17 11 17.8
cc 193 1 15 11 143 12 11 25.9
Total 429 3 24 14 322 29 22 21.4
from the analysis. Students that had a minor in one of these majors were included
in the results because they had to take the same courses as full-time students that
majored in the same degree field. Table 3.5 verifies that the two schools were
similar in the number of student respondents and reports the type of majors and the
number of respondents at each school. The two programs were similar in all majors
with the exception of hospitality management which was sometimes used by
students on the survey to explain their major. These respondents were required to
have a concentration in one of the other major areas, so the difference between
programs was not considered to have significantly influenced group difference in
the college experience domains.
Student Interview Selection
The selection of participants to interview followed a non-random criterion
sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Nealy, 1992; Onwuegbusie & Leech, 2007) to
reflect varied students at each school with multiple perspectives of the college
51


Table 3.5
Survey Participant Ma/or/Minor Characteristic
School Hospitality Hotel Food and Beverage Events, Tourism, Sports Nutrition and Dietetics Total
TC 45 63 30 60 34 232
CC 6 69 52 54 17 198
Total 51 129 82 114 41 430
experiences as reported on the preliminary survey. At the end of the paper survey
(Appendix B) students registered their name and contact information to volunteer
for an interview. The selection of students was based upon an attempt to gain a
variety of students with different concentrations of study within HM. The students
provided basic demographic information on the registration form to include; age,
gender, race, level in school, commuting status, participation in social activities,
and work experience. This information was used to choose students representing
various demographic types from each school. The respondents were contacted
directly by me and an appointment made for an interview.
Characteristics of Student Interviews
The total numbers of participants are reported in Table 3.6. The total
participants were N=\5, with similar group size between TC (N = 7) and CC
(N = 8).
52


Table 3.6
Interview Participant Fields of Study
School Participants Hotel Food and Beverage Events/Tourism Health Professions
TC 7 2 3 1 1
cc 8 2 3 2 1
Total 15 4 6 3 2
Other selection criteria included gaining perspective of students that
participated in various activities in the college experience. Table 3.7 indicates the
types of descriptive statistics that students participated in such as living on or off-
campus and working or participating in clubs while going to school.
Table 3.7
Interview Participants Other Descriptive Statistics
School N Live on Campus Live off- campus Non White Athlete FRAT Student Club Work or Volunteer Full-time
TC 1 0 7 1 0 0 4 7 7
CC 8 2 6 1 0 1 5 8 8
Total 15 2 13 2 0 1 9 15 15
Participant Confidentiality
To protect students from identification the survey did not include personal
identification information. If students wished to volunteer for face-to-face interv iew
they listed their contact at the end of the survey which indicated their intent to be
identified. The survey was conducted at the beginning of a class period and the
instructor was asked to wait outside of the classroom until the survey was
completed so that no identification of those completing or not completing surveys
53


would occur. There were three researchers that administered the survey. They
passed the survey to all students. Students were then asked to turn their surveys
face down when complete. Those opting not to participant similarly placed their
surveys face down. Thus the administrator collected all surveys without knowledge
of who had actually completed it. Prior to the survey a script was read (Appendix
C) that explained to the participants that their responses were confidential and that
only the researcher will compile the results. Further announcements asked students
to not complete the survey if they have completed it in another class. No personal
identification information was connected to their responses.
During the face-to-face interviews the location was a private room in the
campus library or an administrative building. The location was chosen for the
convenience of students and allowed for privacy. The rooms were not viewable by
other persons. At the beginning of the interview students were read a script
(Appendix D) that reminded them of the confidentiality of their responses. The
results of student responses on the interview were reported without using student
names or identifying information.
Instrumentation
This study used the survey instrument provided in Appendix B. The survey
was based upon the competencies presented by Christou (2002). The survey asked
students to rate their level of preparedness in each competency on a Likert-type
scale from a low level (1) to a high level (5). Since the level of self-reported gains
54


in practical competency may have occurred from varied domains in the college
experience, the survey further asked respondents to rate their level of contribution
from the three domains identified previously, classroom pedagogy, campus
activities, and off-campus work and social activities.
The survey presented by Christou (2002) was intended for outside sources
to measure an entry level hospitality employee competency. Some wording was
changed to reflect the language of a student self-perceived competency. The first
essential competency was changed from manages guest problems to ability to
manage guest problems. This change was made so the question read clearly.
Another change to the survey was the use of the word hospitality instead of
hotel when asking respondents to rate their competency in their ability to identify
operational problems in the hospitality industry. If the word hotel was used students
that majored in events or food and beverage or nutrition that did not take as many
hotel courses may not have perceived the question in a uniform way. However, the
word hospitality encompassed all similar majors within both HM programs.
To gain descriptions of the types of activities that students were engaged in
the survey asked questions such as participation in fraternities, athletics, and off-
campus work experience. These activities represented a list of possible activities in
the college experience domains. Further analysis of the student interviews drew out
more detailed experiences that may not have appeared on the survey questions.
55


Survey Variables
The survey includes independent, dependent and extraneous variables
identified in Appendix E (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2008; Lomax, 2001). The
independent variables were composed of active and attribute variables. The active
independent variables, such as fraternity or athletic participation that were not
manipulated by the analysis, but represent causal relationships to outcome variables
such as level of competency. Additional independent variables include attribute
variables such as gender and major that did not change. These descriptors were
used to determine characteristics of group differences.
The dependent variables were the ordinal outcomes of the independent
variables. The dependent variables formed two major groups; level of competency
and level of contribution from class, campus, and off-campus activities.
The extraneous variables were nominal in nature such as type of work
experience or student club were used for descriptive statistics only. The
combination of the independent, dependent, and extraneous variables were used to
respond to difference research questions related to how the two programs differed
in terms of student perceptions of competency and the level of contribution from
classroom pedagogy, campus activities and off-campus experiences.
Conducting the Interview
During the interview each respondent was read a script identified in
Appendix D that described the procedure of the interview and reminded them that
56


participation was voluntary and confidential. There were two researchers, one for
CC and one for TC. Different researchers were used so that a person unfamiliar to
the student conducted the interview. The goal of the interview was to gather
detailed examples of student engagement and how their activities contributed to
their level of competency (Seidman, 2006).
During the interview the researcher showed the participant a list of the types
of activities that may have occurred in the classroom, outside of class or on campus
(see Table 1.2). The researcher asked the students to review the list of activities and
discuss the types of activities that they participated in class, at school or off-
campus. The researchers used the list of 11 competencies to inquire as to what
aspect of the college experience contributed most to their level of competency. The
interview was purposefully limited to the most significant contributing items to
control the scope of the interview and increase accuracy. The respondents had the
opportunity to describe other activities that might not be listed in Table 1.2. As the
student responded to questions the researchers probed further and ask them to
thoroughly explain their responses. The interviews were recorded electronically and
transcribed verbatim in MS Word 2007. The data was transferred to qualitative
analysis software, NV1VO 8 for content analysis (Richards & Richards, 1998).
Data Security'
The research protocol allowed for the full transcriptions and content
analysis of the student responses is made available to the researchers, human
57


subjects committee and approved persons for a period of three years. The data may
be requested for review by contacting the author via email to wraym@mscd.edu.
Student Interview Identities
To protect the identity of students while allowing a means of identification
in the study, codes were created for each student. For the CC students the eight
respondents were labeled A-H. The seven TC students were labeled 1-7. Since all
students at CC were letters and all students at TC were numbers the reader could
identify the school type by reading the student code. Therefore, student responses
were referenced in the analysis and remain available for review upon request.
Analysis
To address the first research question related to how a four-year public and
private college differed on the 11 essential HM competencies I analyzed the survey
results utilizing SPSS statistical analysis software (Levine, 1991). To identify
difference between schools I conducted a multivariate analysis of variance,
MANOVA. The analysis included reports of frequency, variance, validity, and
assumptions discussed in the following sections.
Frequency Reports
The analysis of frequencies explored the means, standard deviation, and
number of respondents for student perceptions of their level of competency on the
11 essential HM competencies. The results reported in Chapter 4 determined how
students perceived their level of competency on each question and how programs
58


differed. The results were descriptive in nature and were not generalized to other
populations.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of HM Competency Between Programs
To demonstrate the complex nature of how schools differed in the level of
contribution from class, campus, and off-campus activities to student reported
competency MANOVA was conducted. MANOVA was used because there were
multiple factors that represented group difference.
The assumptions required of MANOVA included an understanding of
independent observations. It was assumed that each students self-reported gains in
competency and contribution from various aspects of the college experience were
independent of other student scores. To conduct MANOVA I had to verify that the
variances for each dependent variable were approximately equal in each program.
Care was taken to ensure that group size was no more than 1.5 times different from
the smallest to the largest group. Since the smallest program CC had 193
participants compared to 232 at TC the assumption of equal size was not violated.
Validity of HM Competency Scale
Before conducting MANOVA it was important to check for internal
consistency reliability of each of the 11 variables that formed a scale. The
instrumentation of this study relied heavily upon the 11 HM competencies as
presented by Christou (2002). A reliable measure assumed that participation in
engaging activities was a construct that explained student competency in HM.
59


Therefore the variables must have been related systematically in a linear manner.
Scale reliability for internal consistency required multiple measures (Krathwohl,
1993). To assist in reliability of the scale three measures of reliability were
calculated; Cronbachs coefficient alpha, Spearman-Brown Coefficient, and
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient to indicate the consistency of the multiple item
scale (Cronbach, 1951; Litwin, 2002; Raykov, 1998). Such checks utilized a
standard of .70 or higher. A very high measure above .90 meant that the items were
repetitious or that there are more items in the scale than necessary for an internally
reliable measure of the concept. The reliability measures reported in Table 3.8 for
the 11 item scale fell between .70 and .90 for all three indices which indicated that
the items formed a scale that had reasonable internal consistency reliability (Morse,
Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002).
Table 3.8
Crohnbach 's Alpha for 11-Item Scale
Scale Cronbachs a Spearman- Brown Coefficient Guttman Split-Half Coefficient N of Items
Class Activities .80 .83 .83 11
Campus Activities .84 .82 .82 11
Off-campus .87 .81 .80 11
Activities
11 Item Scale .87 .84 .83 11
60


Validity of HM-student Engagement Construct
To provide a measure of validity of the underlying construct that student
engagement among HM-students was composed of three domains; classroom,
campus, and off-campus environments, I conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The results indicated how these
variables hung together in logical groups (Leech, et al. (2008). In the review of
student engagement literature and the problem statement it was postulated that
students were engaged in three unique domains, classroom pedagogy, campus
activities, and off-campus experiences. The factor analysis was necessary to verify
that the three college experience domains were grouped together. A benefit of
factor analysis was if some items did not statistically hang together they may have
been removed in later analysis or combined with other factors to improve the
construct. To improve clarity of PCA I removed all values less than .40 which may
have resulted in some variables being removed from the scale (Leech, et al. 2008).
To test the assumptions of PCA I conducted the Bartlett's test of sphericity
and set an alpha significance factor of .05. The results indicated a value of .898
which was above the recommended value of .70. Furthermore, the significance
factor was <.001 which was below the recommended .05 which indicated that the
correlation matrix was significantly different from the identity matrix (Leech, et al.
2008). Further assumptions included; independent sampling, normality, linear
61


relationships between pairs of variables, and the variables being correlated at a
moderate level which were checked and met.
With the assumptions met I conducted principal axis factor analysis with
varimax rotation to assess the underlying structure of 33 items in the HM
competency survey. Three factors were requested based on the construct that
students viewed class, campus and off-campus as uniquely different learning
environments in the college experience. The Scree plot in Figure 3.1 below
indicated visually that the majority of the variance was explained by the three
factors of the college experience. The dramatic vertical down slope of the graph
followed by the more parallel line indicated that the variance was likely explained
best by three factors.
Scree Plot
Figure 3.1, Scree Plot of Three Factors in the College Experience
62


The table in Appendix F indicates the factor loadings, communalities, and
percentage of variance explained by the three factors in the college experience.
After rotation the first factor in the college experience campus activities accounted
for 23.3% of the variance, whereas the second factor off-campus activities
accounted for 14.8%, and the third accounted for 7.5%. A total of 45.6% of the
variance was explained by the three factors. The Scree plot in Figure 3.1
demonstrated that the plot quickly flattens out after the third factor which indicated
that less of the variance would be explained by computing for four factors. All 33
factors aligned in the three college experience domains without any variation or
need to combine or eliminate factors to improve clarity.
Question Two, Relationships of Student Engagement to Competency in HM
To answer the second question related to the relationship of student
engagement to perceived competency in HM in the two programs I calculated
frequencies and regression analysis. The survey instrument measured the level of
competency in 11 essential areas. The frequency reports identified the level of self-
reported competency and how programs differed. This report did not look at
statistical significance, but was beneficial in determining which competencies were
higher than others and how schools differed. The regression analysis identified
relationships that predicted student competency based upon engagement in class,
campus or off-campus activities.
63


Correlation Analysis
Although reference to other population was not an aspect of this dissertation
correlations between each competency and contribution from class work, campus
and off-campus activities measured the level of contribution that occurred from
each engagement activity. This measure determined the ability to predict the
dependent variable (competency) by several independent variables (contribution
from class, campus off-campus). Each of the competencies was considered
separately to avoid variables that were unrelated to the construct possibly
predicting outcomes. For example, if there were multiple dependent variables and I
tried to compute all 11 competencies at once relationships may have occurred by
chance. When I viewed each competency separately and determined how
classroom, campus or off-campus domains related to performance on the
competency, results indicated a direct relationship. Furthermore, by conducting
hierarchal multiple linear regressions I was able to add a control for school type
consistent with the student engagement literature identified in Chapter 2. By doing
so, I determined whether or not schools differed in a statistically significant way
and how participation in the college experience predicted HM competency. For any
variables that yielded significant results I reported beta weights to identify which
variables significantly contributed to the prediction at these schools.
64


Assumptions of Multiple Regression
To avoid error I tested for multi-collinearity. Multi-collinearity would have
occurred if there were high intercorrelations among some of the predictor variables.
If two or more of the predictors contained similar information, error could have
occurred. The assumptions of linearity, normally distributed errors, and
uncorrelated errors were checked and met (Leech, et al. 2008).
Several checks were required to ensure that multi-collinearity did not occur
which is commonly required of regression analysis (Lomax 2001). I reported the
means, standard deviations and number of respondents for results of the statistical
analysis. Since the inferential statistics used in this study required a normal
distribution I checked for skewness of data and would have transformed variables if
necessary. Although the data were slightly skewed, SPSS was generally robust
against errors of normality among groups and the results may still have value
(Leech, et al. 2008).
Additional assumptions included independence of observations and
linearity. With independence of observations I assumed that there was not a
relationship between the response of one student or another on the survey. Since
there were no recommendations for students to refer friends or associates to take
the survey and the survey was offered to all participants in classes I did not violate
the assumption of independence of observations.
65


In addition to independence of observations, inferential statistics further
assumed that variables were related in a linear way. If they were related they would
have fallen in a clustered line on a scatter plot. I printed and analyzed scatter plots
and the data did not appear curved. Therefore, I did not transform the variables to
reduce error.
Questions 3-5, Student Engagement Between Schools
To address final three research question regarding how HM-students
described activities in the college experience domains; classroom, campus, and off-
campus that contributed to their development of competency in their profession,
three methods of data were collected. The multi-case analysis identified in Table
3.1 included a triangulation of three views of student engagement and student
perceptions of competency in the schools. The three views of student engagement
included college catalog descriptions of the HM program, campus activities, and
off-campus support programs, student responses on the HM competency survey,
and student interviews.
Program Descriptions
For the three domains of student engagement in the college experience;
classroom, campus, and off-campus activities 1 analyzed the college catalog and
prepared a summarized description of each domain. I sent the summaries to the
administrator in each HM department. The result of the analysis was a descriptive
theme statement that described the program and the types of experience available to
66


students in the classroom and on and off-campus. To improve content validity of
the theme statements the administrators were invited to check the statement for
clarity and content and had the opportunity to add or delete items so that their
programs and activities were described. The administrators comments were used
to adjust the program descriptions to improve accuracy.
Course Requirements
To assist in identifying differences between schools in the classroom
domain I analyzed the required course content for the major/concentrations in the
two HM programs. 1 looked at similar majors at each school to include hotel, food
and beverage, events, and nutrition. The purpose of conducting a course
requirement analysis was to identify differences between programs in the types and
frequencies of courses in each major. If one program had stressed more courses in
one major than another program such availability of courses may have contributed
to their competency in that field.
Survey Frequency Analysis
To further address the last three research question regarding student
perceptions of engagement activities amongst HM programs I analyzed the
frequency of survey responses presented in Appendix B. The survey results were
entered into SPSS software. As problems arose, it became necessary to make
decisions as to how the data was categorized. I took notes and made decisions on
data which were reported as data rules in Appendix G. The results of the analysis
67


provided descriptive statistics of some of the student engagement activities
(Keppel, 1991; Lomax 2001). The results provided further incite to similarities and
differences between programs and an overall measure of all respondents
participation in educational purposeful activities such as student clubs, fraternities,
and off-campus work experience.
Student Interview Analysis
To gain a deeper perspective on the types of activities that engaged students
in college experience, the interviews provided the final triangulation of data that
described what types of activities contributed to their level of competency. The
survey discussed previously did not address the multitude of engagement activities
occurred in and out of the classroom such as engaging with peers and faculty on
varied tasks such as debates, problems and simulations, student clubs, and work
experience. By asking the students the most significant contributing factors of their
college experience I gained a perspective of student perceptions of the
educationally purposeful activities that occurred and to what degree they occurred
in each domain. The goal was to draw out experiences that contributed to their
competency and provided a student voice to explain connections between the
classroom domain pedagogy and their learning.
During the interview if a student answered a question as yes or no or did not
provide sufficient detail the researchers probed further to gain detailed information
on how activities in each of the three college experience domains contributed to
68


their competency. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into MS Word and
imported to NvIV08 for content analysis.
Student Interview Frequency in the Classroom Domain
To further describe the classroom domain from student responses in the
interview I organized categories in the NVIVO software to look for the type of
pedagogy described in Table 1-2. As I read the interv iew transcripts I analyzed the
type of activity the student was referring to such as reading books, interacting with
faculty or work experience. I placed the data into the categories listed in Table 1-2.
As with the quantitative data as a need arose for creating a rule on data analysis I
recorded the rule which appears in Appendix G. The purpose of coding the
interview data into categories was to verify that the types of college experience
engagement activities that occurred at these schools. The results also indicated the
frequency of student references to pedagogies in the classroom domain.
Once the categories for each domain in the college experience were
analyzed I reviewed the results of the categories with my research chairperson and
a peer research committee to verify that the categorizations of student responses
were placed in logical categories. Any coding that was not placed into an
appropriate category was removed or placed in a different category.
Through multiple interviews, themes and trends developed in each category.
I summarized the themes that developed in each category such as books, debates,
and student clubs and created a description of each category. In the descriptions 1
69


used the student voice verbatim when possible. If the student voice did not read
clearly or made reference to a previous discussion I placed words in italics to add
clarity. For the first two domains (questions 3-4) classroom and campus, the
descriptions detailed how and why students valued their experience. In some cases
there was a difference between schools due to the emphasis of one pedagogy or
campus activity over another. In the off-campus (question 5) domain, however, the
responses from students were not manipulated or controlled by the school to a large
degree. Furthermore, the category work experience had lengthy responses from
students which created a need for further analysis. I used the format of the question,
which asked students to identify what domain contributed most to each of the 11
HM competencies. For the work experience category, I discussed the relevance of
student work or volunteer experience to each of the 11 HM competencies.
Interpreting Inferential Statistics
For the inferential statistical analysis in this study I used alpha values of .05
to determine whether or not the results were statistically significant (Lomax 2001).
I considered results statistically significant if the p value was less than .06. With the
value of less than .06, setting alpha at .05 I reduced the probability of a Type I error
whereas the null hypothesis would have been rejected and could have possibly been
true (Leech, et al. 2008).
70


Effect size
Statistical significance does imply that the results were practically
significant. Large sample sizes occurred in this study which exceeded 50% of the
student body. In studies with larger sample size, statistically significant results with
may have resulted with weak effect size. Therefore, the results may not have been
practically important. To address problems of practical significance I reported the
strength of the outcomes in additional to statistical significance. The size of this
effect was reported as recommended by Cohen (1988) as small, medium, large or
very large effect. In the literature review in Chapter 2 not all researchers reported
effect size, but in almost all cases small effect was the largest seen in HM studies
and similar student engagement literature. Therefore, 1 reported all values even if
they were less than the recommended levels for a small effect.
Limitations of the Analysis
This study had both an advantage and disadvantage to sample size.
Although there was a large overall sample size of 437 and equal group size that
exceeded priori power estimates, the data was limited in the number of programs
compared. With two programs the sample was not large enough to be considered
replicable to larger populations such as all HM programs. The results were limited
to describing the programs in this study and were note replicated to larger groups.
The measures in this study served as a descriptive look at the student experience in
two HM programs. With the high response rate at these schools the relationship
71


data served as good predictors of HM competency, but not for other populations.
An attempt was made to gain research approval at a third school. The third school
offered graduate programs and would have offered another Carnegie type and a
different perspective to the study. The school declined to participate which limited
the study to undergraduate degree institutions.
The qualitative interviews of students were limited to the amount of
students that volunteered and their availability. Although I exceeded my goal of at
least 4 students from each program, looking at 15 students represented less than 2%
of the student body which was not a high enough response to provide statistical
data for all types of students with varied college experiences. Therefore, statistical
analysis of qualitative interview results was not generalized to other populations.
Furthermore, students were asked only the most significant contribution to their
competency. I did not ask for verification of all of the pedagogy in the classroom or
activity on or off-campus had occurred. If I had gone to the extent of verifying all
types of pedagogy and activities in the college experience the results would have
gone beyond the scope of the study. Rather, the purpose of the interviews was
limited to providing a student voice to the types of activities in the college
experience. Therefore, to enhance validity a triangulation of data provided multiple
views of the same phenomenon. No single source in the triangulation was
considered replicable to other populations.
72


The conceptual framework of this dissertation relied upon 11 competencies
in HM being a measure of student competency. There were likely to have been
multiple measures of student competency far beyond the 11 measures. Therefore,
school comparisons or judgment on program quality should not be construed from
this data. The scope of the study was purposefully limited to 11 factors as they
were the common competencies reported in HM literature. The goal was to extract
how two schools differed on the level of competency and how engagement
activities in the college experience contributed to student development. The success
of graduates from either program was not limited to these 11 competencies alone
and likely extended far beyond the scope of this dissertation.
The student success on the 11 HM competencies were based on self-
reported perceptions of competency. That same competency may have been better
measured by an external source that was not subject to student self reflection.
Therefore, student comments and responses were meant as a descriptive measure
only and not considered measurements of school effectiveness or graduate
preparation. Furthermore, I could have conducted regression analysis where
multiple factors were controlled for such as participation in student clubs or work
experience. Although interesting, the predictability of HM competency based upon
individual pedagogy or activity participation was beyond the scope of the study and
the research questions.
73


Another weakness in the research design was the lack of member checks on
student responses on the survey. The design relied upon triangulation of three
views of the college experience, college catalog, HM survey, and student
interviews. The validity of the data was enhanced by the three views but limited by
using verbatim responses of students. Another technique would have been to create
summary statements from each student, seek inter-rater reliability with a second
researcher and then check with students to verify that the summaries represented
their viewpoint. The study design of this dissertation used the former technique
rather than the latter, wherein student responses were kept in their own voice and
not altered by a researcher. This approach took a narrative viewpoint to tell a story
in the students own voice with minimal alteration to their responses.
74


CHAPTER 4
HM COMPETENCY AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE
Overview of Statistical Methods
This dissertation relied upon the 11 HM Competencies identified in Table
2-3 as a list of desirable competencies for hospitality managers (Christou, 2002).
The results in this chapter addressed the first and second research questions related
to how students self-reported competency differed at a four-year public and private
college and to what degree participation in the college experience predicted HM
competency. To address the first research question related to differences between
programs in the level of competency and contribution from the three domains in the
college experience; class, campus, and off-campus activities, I conducted
MANOVA. Further analysis included descriptive frequencies, internal consistency
of the 11 item scale and validity of the construct of three domains in the college
experience.
Regression analysis was conducted to address the second question related to
the relationship of student engagement in the college experience to perceived
competency in HM at two schools. The mean scores and standard deviations of
self-reported competency in HM identified how programs differed. However,
hierarchal linear regression was necessary to determine the predictability of HM
competency by student participation in the three domains in the college experience.
75


Each of the competencies was considered separately to avoid variables that were
unrelated to the construct predicting outcomes. For any variables that yielded
significant results beta weights were analyzed to identify which variables
significantly contributed to the prediction and the percentage of variance from
mean scores that was explained by variables in the model. For those variables that
were not significant the results were recorded in table format as an appendix.
Frequency Reports
The analysis of frequencies explored the means, standard deviation and
number of respondents for student perceptions of their level of competency on the
11 HM competencies. Figure 4.1 displays the mean HM competency scores
graphically. The results indicated similar scores in both programs which required
further analysis to determine significant differences between programs.
Figure 4.1 Student Reported Competency Chart by Program
76


Further analysis calculated the means and standard deviations of student
reported contribution from the three domains in the college experience. The results
of the mean scores from each domain are pictured graphically for all domains at TC
combined in Figure 4.2 and for CC in Figure 4.3. Additional analysis was required
to indicate significant difference between programs on the level of contribution
from the three domains in the college experience.
By visually analyzing the graphs the self reported HM competency in
Figure 4.1 appeared similar in both schools. The level of contribution from the
three domains in Figure 4.2 and 4.3 appeared that in both programs the classroom
and off-campus domains dominated student reported contribution. Additional
analysis was needed to identify significant differences between programs.
3.00
Class
' Campus
Off-Campus
Figure 4.2 TC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains
77


3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Class
J Campus
Off-Campus
Figure 4.3 CC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains
MANOVA of HM Competency Between Programs
To demonstrate the complex nature of how programs differed in the level of
contribution from class, campus and off-campus domains to student reported
competency, MANOVA was conducted. MANOVA was used because there were
multiple factors that represented group difference. Before conducting MANOVA,
checks for internal consistency of the 11 item HM competency scale and validation
of the college experience construct was conducted.
Assumptions of MANOVA
The first assumption required of MANOVA includes an understanding of
independent observations which was checked and met (Leech, et al. 2008).
Secondly, group size was no more than 1.5 times different from the smallest to the
78


largest group. Since the smallest school, CC had 193 participants, compared to 232
at TC, the assumption of equal size was not violated.
Validity of HM Competency Scale
The instrumentation of this study relied heavily upon the 11 HM
competencies as presented by Christou (2002). A reliable measure assumed that
participation in engaging activities was a construct that explained student
competency in HM. Three measures of internal consistency were used in this
dissertation. Table 3-8 reported the scores for internal consistency of the 11 item
scale. All three indices fell between .70 and .90, which indicated good internal
consistency reliability, (Krathwohl, 1993; Cronbach, 1951; Litwin, 2002; Raykov,
1998). Therefore the variables must have been related systematically in a linear
manner with good internal consistency.
Validity of HM-student Engagement Construct
To provide a measure of validity of the underlying construct that student
engagement among HM-students was composed of three domains; classroom,
campus, and off-campus domains, I conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis, EFA
and Principal Components Analysis, PCA. To test the assumptions of PCA I
conducted the Bartletts test of sphericity and set an alpha significance factor of
.05. The results indicated a value of .898 which was above the recommended value
of .70. Furthermore, the significance factor was <.001 which was below the
recommended .05 which indicated that the correlation matrix was significantly
79


different from the identity matrix (Leech, et al., 2008). Further assumptions
included; independent sampling, normality, linear relationships between pairs of
variables, and the variables being correlated at a moderate level which were
checked and met.
With the assumptions met I conducted principal axis factor analysis with
varimax rotation to assess the underlying structure of 33 items in the HM
competency survey. Three factors were requested based on the construct that
students viewed class, campus, and off-campus domains as uniquely different
learning environments in the college experience. Appendix F indicates the factor
loadings, communalities, and percentage of variance explained by the three factors
in the college experience. After rotation the first factor in the college experience,
campus activities accounted for 23.3% of the variance, the second factor accounted
for 14.8%, and the third factor accounted for 7.5%. A total of 45.6% of the variance
was explained by the three factors. All 33 factors aligned in the three college
experience domains without any variation or need to combine or eliminate factors
to improve clarity.
MANOVA of HM Competency
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were
differences between programs on a linear combination of 11 hospitality
competencies. The assumptions of independence of observations and homogeneity
of variance/covariance were checked and met. When the 11 variables were
80


combined in a scale no significant difference was found, Wilks A = .960,
F(11,416) = 1.593,/? = .10, q = .20, where Wilks A is the appropriate type of
statistical formula applied to the measure. F represents the critical value of the
statistic taking into account the degrees of freedom of the sample size. The p value
represents the probability that the calculated F statistic is significant, which is
indicated by values less than .005 (Leech, et al. 2008). The q represents the effect
size measure, which according to Cohen (1998) are measured as small for values
between .10 and .23, medium for values between .24 and .36, large for values from
.37 to .44, and very large for values at .45 or above. The table in Appendix G
indicates the means and standard deviations for the 11 HM competencies.
A follow-up ANOVA (Appendix H) revealed that of the 11 competencies
the student reported competency of possessing leadership qualities significantly
contributed to program difference F{ 1,426) = 4.242,/? = .040, q = .10, which was a
small effect. CC students reported that their competency in leadership qualities
(M= 4.02 ) was significantly higher than TC (M= 3.86).
MANOVA of Program Difference in the Classroom Domain
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were
differences between programs on a linear combination of student reported
contribution from class activities for the 11 hospitality competencies (Table 4.1).
The assumptions of independence of observations and homogeneity of
81


variance/covariance were checked and met. A significant difference was found,
Wilks A = .942 F(l 1,411) = 2.31,p = .009, i] = .24, which was a medium effect.
Table 4.1
Means and Standard Deviations of Student Self Reported HM Competency
HM Competency M CC SD N M TC SD N
Manage guest problems 2.24 .63 193 2.11 .64 230
Develop customer relations 2.21 .64 193 2.14 .64 230
Professional appearance 2.33 .70 193 2.17 .70 230
Communicate written and oral 2.59 .61 193 2.57 .56 230
Relationships with employees 2.05 .73 193 2.17 .74 230
Identify operational problems 2.22 .70 193 2.14 .64 230
Maintain ethical standards 2.47 .64 193 2.41 .63 230
Possess leadership qualities 2.40 .61 193 2.33 .65 230
Motivate employees for performance 2.15 .70 193 2.07 .74 230
Follow legal responsibility 2.61 .56 193 2.46 .66 230
Follow hygiene and safety regulations 2.57 .60 193 2.42 .70 230
Table 4.2 identifies the between program effects of the classroom domain
for competency in HM. The table indicates those competencies that significantly
contributed to the difference between programs. The table includes the df or
degrees of freedom of the sample size, the F, p, and i] values (discussed previously)
82


Full Text

PAGE 1

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT by Michael L. Wray BS, Virginia Tech, 1986 MBA, Salisbury University 1993 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education Leadership and Innovation 2010

PAGE 2

2010 by Michael Lewis Wray All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Michael L. Wray has been approved by I Date

PAGE 4

Michael L. Wray (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) Student Engagement and the College Experience in Hospitality Management Thesis directed by Associate Professor Ellen Stevens Program Advisor ABSTRACT Student perceptions of competency in Hospitality !v1anagement, (HM) and the level of engagement in the college experience were compared between two programs to verify engagement as a construct consisting of three domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus. Administrator and student descriptions of engagement in the college experience described the pedagogy, activities, and experiences that were unique between a four-year public and private college. A multi-case study design was employed to triangulate quantitative and qualitative data including student surveys, college catalog descriptions, and interviews The three domains were verified using statistical reliability. A survey of HM competency based upon the top 11 competencies presented by Christou (2002) was designed to measure student reported competency and the level of contribution from the three domains. Results explained the level of student competency and the amount of contribution of the three domains The construct validity of the college experience was best explained by three domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus and was not improved by additional factors. Student competency did not differ between

PAGE 5

programs, however the classroom domain was significantly higher in competency at a four-year private college where classes where described as fostering engagement with peers and faculty. Students described effective pedagogy as involving group interactions, case studies, and discussions. Engagement in the college experience was a predictor of student competency in both programs with classroom and off-campus domains predicting the most competencies. Results were consistent with previous student engagement literature that identified engagement in college as related to student outcomes. The most effective domain in contribution to competency was off-campus where students were supported by family, spiritual activities, and work experience. HM-students tended to work in their field that had a direct relationship to concepts and theories discussed in the classroom. A model was developed that described the three domains and may be of value to future researchers, administrators students and hospitality managers as they choose to investigate design and support the types of pedagogy activity, and experiences that relate to competency This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate s thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Ellen Stevens

PAGE 6

DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my mother Lorraine, M Wray, Ed.D. who in her later years became my mentor, coach and confidant as I entered the family business ... education. As a son of two teachers, my father an art teacher and my mother a special education principal I feel blessed with their passion for teaching and their mix of skills and drive to make learning natural and fun. My mother always had her eye on outcomes of students and found creative ways to connect classroom, school and community resources to create learning opportunities. I feel her spirit with me every day I teach and in each word in this dissertation as I strove to find out what works for hospitality management students.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I acknowledge those who supported me in thought, word, and deed throughout my doctoral program. Although my family is on the East Coast, they have remained an encouraging force in my effort to complete this life achievement. I'm particularly thankful to my Aunt Virginia (Ginny) Wray who has smiled through the phone as I discuss each new goal I set and how much joy and frustration occurred from my learning process. I am grateful for the process of learning with peers and close mentorship with faculty. I have learned much about the value of working closely with others and that the best work was done through discussion, encouragement, and support of one's peers. I am very thankful to my lab cohort partners, (Barbara Bates, Patrick Lowenthal, and Teri Switzer) and will remain lifelong friends and research partners with them all. My committee chair and advisor Ellen Stevens has set a great example of how a teacher can be a friend, mentor, expert practitioner, and disciplinarian. She was there to guide and encourage me and found a way to pull me back in line when 1 needed it most. Not all teachers find the balance of skills necessary to motivate others. She was the first teacher to express an interest in me and her commitment never waned. To her, l am eternally grateful.

PAGE 8

To my committee members, I am thankful for your time and encouraging spirit. I am thankful for Dr. Rodney Muth who was gentle and encouraging when this study appeared out of reach for me. His unique way of making very difficult projects seem plausible was timely and accurate. I appreciate Dr. Jeffrey Miller for providing expert hospitality management leadership and commuting the distance to Denver to complete interviews and survey's. I am grateful to my friend colleague, and employer Dr. John Dienhart who took a chance on me 18 years ago and hired a part-time teacher in Ocean City Maryland who so very much wanted to get out of the restaurant business and into a classroom. Your encouragement and patient commitment to me over the years has gained my life-long loyalty and respect. I am especially thankful for the students who participated in this study. appreciate the time that they took to share their opinions and thoughts on what works for them in college. I will do my best to take what I have learned and share with others the lessons you've taught me

PAGE 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES XV TABLES ...... ......... .................. ........... ........... .... ...... .................. ........... XVI CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... ... .............................. ... ..... I Purpose ofthe Study .................................... .... ....................... ................ 1 Problem Statement ............... ......... ............... ... ......................................... 3 Conceptual Frame\vork ......... ............. ....... ........ ...... .......... ...................... 7 The HM College Experience . ............ ...... ............. ....... ............. . ..... 8 Concept Diagram ......... ......... .... ........... ....... ....... ....... ...... ... . ........... 9 Student Engagement in HM ....................... .... ...................... ........... 12 Competency in HM .......................................................................... 13 Summary .......................................................................................... l5 Research Questions ............................................ ......... .... ........ .... ..... .... 16 Methodology ... .............. ...... ....... ... ................ ............ ......... . .......... . .... I 7 Organization of the Dissertation .......................................... .................. 18 2 REVIEW OF THE UTERATURE ...................................... .... . ..... ...... 20 Background ............................................................................................ 20 National Study on Student Learning Literature .................................... 21 Large Scale Student Engagement Literature .......................................... 23 Forms of Measurement in Large Scale Studies .... .................. ........ 27 Qualitative Student Engagement Studies ......................................... 30 Demonstrating a Need for Study in Hospitality Management ............. . 31 Aspects of Student Engagement in HM ... . .......... ........................... 33 Measuring Practical Competency in HM ........ ......................... ..... ........ 36 Summary ..... .... .... ................... ..... ................... . .................................... 41 3. METHODOLOGY ..................... . ... .... ........ ........ ..... .... ............. ... ...... ... 44 Background ...... . ...................... ..... ................ ... ... .................................. 44 Design ............................... ...... . .............. .... ......................... ............ 45 Participants ........................................................ ................. ................... 4 7 IX

PAGE 10

Department Chairper s ons ........ ............ . ......... ...... ...... ... .... .... .... ... 48 Student Participants .... ... . ........... ....... ........ ................... . . ...... ..... . 48 Response Rate . ........ ......................... .... ...... ...... . ............ .... ............ 49 Demographic Characteristics .......... . ..... ... ..... ............................ .... 49 Ethnographic Characteristics ............... .... ...... ................................. 50 Declared Major Characteristics ........ ....... . ... .... ..................... . .... ... 50 Student Interview Selection .......... .... ...... ....... . . . .............. .... ........ 51 Characteristics of Student Interviews ............ ..... .. ... . ...... ..... .... . 52 Participant Confidentiality ..... ... ......... ...... ... .......... . ............ ... .... ... 53 Instrumentation ..... . ....... ....... .... . . ...... ... ... . . ........... ... .... ...... .... ... ... 54 Survey Variable s ... ... ....... . . ........... ... .... ........ .... ... ........... ... . . . ...... 56 Conducting the Interview ................. ... ... ... . ..................... . ... ... .... 56 Data Security ..... .... ......................... . ... ... ......................... ...... ... .... 57 Student Intervi e w Identities ............ .... ... ...... .... .................... ... ... . 58 Analysis ....... ... ... . . ...... . . . .............. ... .. ... ..... ..... ............ ... ...... ...... 58 Frequency reports .... .... ....... .... .... ...... ... ......... ...... ... . ........... ... .... ... 58 Multivariate Analy s is of Variance of HM Competency Between Programs .... .... . ... ..... ... ........... . ... ... .... ... .......... ... ...... . .............. 59 Validity of HM Competency Scale ... . ... ..... ... . .................... ... . . ... 59 Validity of HM-student Engagement Construct ................... ...... .... 61 Question Two Relationships of Student Engagement to Competency ... .......... ..... .............. ... ... ......... ........ .................. ..... ... ... 63 Correlation Analysi s ........ ........ .... . . ............. ............... ......... ...... 64 Assumptions of Multiple Regression .... ....... ........... ... ............. .... . 65 Questions 3-5 Student Engagement Between Schools ..... . ....... . . . 66 Program Descriptions ... .... .... . ...... ..... .......... ... .... . .... ..... . ........ 66 Course Requirements ............. . . ... ...... ..... . ...... ............... . .......... 67 Survey Frequen c y Analysis ....... ...... ..... ... ........................ . ... ...... 67 Student Interview Analysis ............. .... .... ... ... ... .................... ..... . . 68 Student Interview Frequency in the Classroom Domain ... .... ... .. .. 69 Interpreting Inferenti a l Statistics ... .......... ............ ......... . . .......... . ...... . 70 Effect Size ... . . ..... .... . . . .... .... . ...... . . ..... ... .... . . ...... ...... ......... .... ... 7 1 Limitations of the Analysis ............ . .... . . .... ... . ... .... ........... .......... 71 4 HM COMPETENCY AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE ... ........... 75 Overview of Statistic a l Methods .............. .... .................................... ... 75 Frequency Reports ...... ... . ...................... ........ ........................ . ... ...... ... 76 MANOV A of HM C ompetency Between Programs ... ... .... .... ....... 7 8 Assumption s of M ANOV A ....... ... ...... ... . ... ... .......... ... ....... . ... 78 Validit y of HM C ompetenc y Scal e ...... ... .......... ... ...... . . ............ 79 X

PAGE 11

Validity of HM -student Engagement Construct.. ......................... 79 MANOV A of HM Competency ......................................... .... ...... 80 MANOV A of Program Difference in the Classroom Domain .............................................................. .......................... 81 MANOV A of Program Difference in the Campus Domain ......... 84 MANOV A of Program Difference from the Off-campus Domain ......................................................................................... 86 Relationship of Student Engagement to HM Competency .............. 86 Predicting Competency by Engagement in the College Experience .......................................................... .... ...................... 87 Summary ..................... ................ ....................... ... ......................... 87 HM Competency ......... ................................................................. 89 Predicting HM Competency .................................................... 90 5 THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE DOMAINS ............ .................... ........ 92 Overview of Research Methodology ..................................................... 92 Student Interview Characteristics .................................................... 93 Classroom Domain ... ................................................ ......... ..................... 94 Technical College ................................. .............. .................. ......... 94 Career College .................................................................................. 96 Course Requirements ....... ......... .............................................. ........ 99 Hotel Management Courses ........................................................ 101 Food and Beverage Courses ....................................................... 102 Events, Recreation, Tourism Courses ......................................... I 03 Nutrition/Dietetics Courses ........................................................ 103 General Business Courses .......................................... ............... 104 General Education Courses ........................................................ 104 Student Interview Frequency .............. ... ........................................ I 05 Classroom Domain Student Descriptions ...................................... 106 Case Study .... ....... ............ .......................................................... I08 Assignments ................................................................................ 109 Presentations ............................................................................... 1 1 1 Exams ......................................................................................... 112 Debate and Discussion ................................................................ 113 Demonstrations ........................................................................... 115 Experiential Labs ........................................................................ II5 Faculty Interactions .................................................................... 119 Guest Speakers ........................................................................... I21 Off-can1pus Tours .......................... ...... ....................................... 122 Online courses ............................................................................ 123 XI

PAGE 12

Peer Interactions ........................................................................ 124 Lectures ................... .................. ..................... ... .... ................. 128 Reading ................................................................. .... ................ 129 Classroom Domain Summary .......... ............................................. 131 TC Classroom Domain ............................................................... 133 Campus Domain .................................... . ............................................ 135 Technical College ......................... .................. .... ....... ... .............. 135 Career College ..... .. ... .... ................ ... . ................. . ... .... ........ ....... 13 7 Survey Frequency Analysis .......... . ..................... . ....................... 139 Student Interview Analysis ............ ........................ ..................... 140 Athletics ................. ....................... ............................................ 141 Campus Activities . . ......................................... ......................... 142 Campus Housing . . ................ ..... ... ................... ... .... ............... ... 143 Campus Volunteering ................. .................... ....................... ... 144 Faculty Campus Interactions ............................... ...................... 145 Faculty Mentoring .................. ............................ ...................... 145 Fraternity-Sorority Participation .. .............. ...... ... .................... 146 Peer Interactions . ......... .... ...... ... ......... ... . . ... .... .......... ........... 146 Student Clubs ....... ........................ ............................................. 14 7 Tutoring ............. ......................... .............................................. 151 Campus Domain Summary ........... ................................................ 151 TC Campus Domain .................... ................... ...... ................ . 153 Off-campus Domain ... .... ............... ....... ... ............... ....... ...... ....... . . 154 Technical College .................................................. . ..................... 155 Career College ..... .... ............................................. . ..................... I 56 Survey Frequency Analysis ........... ................................................ 157 Student Interviews ........................ . .... ................... . ...................... I57 Electronic Medium ......................... .... ....... ....... ........ .... ....... ... 158 Family-Friends .... .................... .... ..................... .... ...................... 159 Spiritual Activities ................. .............................. . ............... ... 161 Volunteer Work ......................... .................... ..... ...... .............. 162 Working with Diverse Students . .......................... ..................... I 63 Work Experience .......................... .... ............... ................... ..... I 63 Manage Guest Problems with Sensitivity and Care ............... I 64 Develop Positive Customer Relations .................................. 166 Demonstrate Professional Appearance and Poise .................. 168 Communicate Effectively both Written and Orally ............... 169 Achieve Positive Working Relationships with Employees ... I 71 Identify Operational Problems .... ...... ...... ....... . ... ...... .... ...... 174 Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards ........... ........ . . 177 Possess Leadership Qualities ...................... .... . ................... I 79 XII

PAGE 13

Motivate Employees to Achieve D e sired Performance .... ... 183 Follow Legal Aspects of Hospitality Operations ......... ...... . 1 8 5 Follow Hygiene and Safety Principl e s . . ............... ... ... ........ 186 Off-campus Domain Summary ... ........ ... ...... .......... ............. . ...... 1 8 8 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ... ... ..... ...... ... ...... . . .... . . ...... 191 Overview of the Discu s sion .............. ...... ... ....... ...................... .......... 191 Reliability of the 11 Item Scale and the College Experience .......... . ... 192 Discussion of Question # 1 ........................ ...... ... . . .............. ............. 194 MANOVA of the College Experience ......... ..... ... ... . ..... ... ... .... . 195 MANOV A of the Cla s sroom Domain ... ....... ............. ........... . ... ..... 196 MANOV A of the Campus Domain . .......... ... . . ... ... .... ...... . . .... . 197 MANOVA ofthe Off-campus Domain ...... ... . . ... . .... ........ . . . ... 198 Program Difference in the College Ex p e rience ............. ........ ........ 199 Discussion of Question # 2 ......................... ............................... ... ...... 200 Discussion of Question #3 ...................... ......... .. ... . ........................ ... . 204 The Classroom Domain Explained ... ........ ... ... ................... . .... ... 204 College Catalog Program Descriptions ..... . ... ... . . ... ....... . . ... . 205 Course Requirement s ... . ........ .... . ........ ... . ..... ... ...... . .... . .... . 206 Student Interviews . ... ... . . . ....... . ...... .... . . . . ..... . . ....... . . .... . 209 Assignments .... ...... .. ........ ..... . .... ... .... ... . ... .......... .... .... .... ... . 209 Case Stud y and Discussion ... ... .......... . . ... ... ........ .... ... . . ... 210 Experienti a l labs ............................ ................................ ... . 211 Lectures .... ....... ........................... . ......... ........................... ... . 211 Off-campus tours ....................... ............. .................. . ....... 212 Peer interactions .. ... . ... ...... ..... .... . . ......... ... ....... .... . ......... 212 Summary of Que s tion # 3 the Classroom Domain .... . .... ..... ... . 213 Discussion of Question # 4 . .... ... ....... ..... ... ........ . ... ..... .... ....... . ...... ... 217 College Catalog C ampus Description s ..... ... . . ... ....... .... .... . ... ... 219 Frequency R e port s of Engagement on Campus ................. .... .... ... 219 Student Intervi e w s R e garding the Campus Domain ............ ... ... ... 220 Summary of the Campus Domain ...... .... . ... . .................... . . .... .... 224 Discussion of Question # 5 .............. ... ........... . . ... ... ................ . .... . . . 2 2 6 Off-campus Exp erie n ce s from Student Int e rviews ... .... .... ... ....... 2 28 NonWork Exp erie nc e s . . ... ... . . ........ ..... ...... ... . . ... .... . .... . ... 229 Work Exp erie nce ...... ......... ...... ........... ...... ................. .... ... ...... . 2 3 0 Customer a nd e mployee relation s ......... ... .... ....... .... ... ........ 230 HM profe s sion a lism ............. .... .......... .... .................. . ...... . ... 231 HM operation s ........................ ....... ......... ......................... ..... 233 Leadership a nd motivation ........... ...... . ..................... . . .... . . 234 XIII

PAGE 14

Summary of the Off-campus Domain ...... . .... . ........ .................... 235 Summary of the College Experienc e ... ... .... ... .... .......................... 239 The HM College Experience Model.. ..... ... ................................. 240 The classroom domain ... . .... . ........... .... ................................ 241 The campus domain ....... . .... .............. ... ................................. 243 The off-campus domain . ..... ... ........ .... ................................ 243 Implications .................. ............ ......... .......... ...... ................................ 244 Implications for Students . ............ . . ... . ...... . ................................ 245 Implications for Program Administrators .... .... ......... . ................. 245 Implications for the HM Indu s try ... ... ... .. ... ....... . . .... .... ...... . ...... 24 7 Implications for Researchers .... .... . . ... ....... . . ... ........... ........... . . 248 APPENDIX .. .. ...... . . . .... ..... . ... .... ..... ....... ... ... ....... ........... . .... ........ . . 250 A. COMPARISON OF COMPETENCIES IN HM IN UK, USA AND GREECE .................. ..... . . ... .... . ..... .... .... ........... ...... .... ... .......... .... 250 B SURVEY INSTRUMENT ... . ....... ...... ... .... ... ........ . .......................... 253 C. SCRIPT FOR STUDENT SURVEYS ... ............. ....... ................. ...... 258 D SCRIPT FOR STUDENT INTERVIEWS ....... .......... ........................ 260 E. TABLE OF VARIABLES AND CODES ...... ....... .............................. 263 F FACTOR LOADING FOR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCT ........................... ......... ... ... ... ........................................ 266 G. DATARULES ............. .......... ...... .... . . ...... ..... . ................................. 268 H. ANOV AT ABLES ........... ... . ... ... ....... . . . ... ...... ........ ....................... 270 I. MULTIPLE REGRESSION TABLES ... .... . ...... ... ... .... .......... .... ... . 276 J. COURSE REQUIREMENTS BY MAJOR/CONC E NTRATION AND PROGRAM ... ... . . ... ... . ... . . . . . .... . ... ........ . ..... . .... . ....... . ... 282 REFERENCES ...... ............... .... . .... .... . . ...... . .......... . . ........... ......... ... . .... . 286 XIV

PAGE 15

FIGURES Figure 1.1 Relationship of the College Experience to HM Competency ...................... l 0 3.1 Scree Plot of Three Factors in the College Experience ................................ 62 4. I Student Reported Competency Chart by Program .......... ........................ .... 76 4.1 TC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains ..... .. ... ......... .... .... 77 4.3 CC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains ............................ 78 XV

PAGE 16

TABLES Table 1.1 Models for student achievement, engagement and the college experience .... 8 1.2 Proposed hospitality management college experience model.. .................... 13 1.3 HM Essential Competencies ........................................................................ 14 2.1 Dependent measures in the NSSE data within three scales ......................... 25 2.2 Relationship of engagement activities, campus environment and outcomes .............................................................. ..................................... 27 2.3 Rank order of essential competencies for management trainee in different countries .................................................................................................... 3 8 2.4 Top three practitioner perceptions of knowledge, skills, and attitudes .. ...... 39 3.1 Data collection strategies ............................................................................. 46 3.2 Participation and response rates ................................................................... 49 3.3 Survey participant demographic characteristics .... ........ ............... ... ............. 50 3.4 Survey participant ethnographic characteristic frequency ........................... 51 3.5 Survey participant major / minor characteristics ........................................... 52 3.6 Interview participant fields of study ....... .................................................... 53 3.7 Interview participants other descriptive statistics ........................................ 53 3.8 Cronbach's alpha for 11-item scale .............................................................. 60 4.1 Mean and Stand Deviations of student self reported HM competency ........ 82 4.2 Between program effects of HM competency from the classroom domain ......... . ............ ..... ............... . .................................................. ... 83 4.3 Parameter estimates of between program differences from the classroom domain ............................................................................... ..... ................ 85 4.4 Summary of college experiences and program type prediction of HM competency ......... ................ ................... ..................... ......... ........ .... ....... 88 5.1 Core course requirements by concentration and supporting courses .... .... 100 5.2 Frequency of classroom domain interview respondents by school.. .......... 106 5 3 Summary of catalog descriptions, course requirements and interview responses for CC .... ........................................... ....... .... ........ ............... ...... 132 5.4 Summary of catalog descriptions, course requirements and interview responses for TC ......................................................................................... 134 5.5 Survey participant campus and off-campus characteristics by frequency. 140 5.6 Frequency of campus domain interview respondents by program ........ ..... 141 5.7 Summary of catalog descriptions and interview responses for the campus domain at CC .............................................................................................. 152 XVI

PAGE 17

5.8 Summary of catalog descriptions a nd interview responses for the campus domain at TC ..... . ....... . ........... ....... ............... ..... . . ... ..... ...... ... ... ....... .... 154 5 9 Frequency of campus domain interview respond e nts by program ....... ..... 158 6.1 Hospitality management college experience model.. .... .......... ..... ........... 241 A.l Comparison of Competencies in HM in UK, USA and Greece ........ ........ 250 E.l Table of Variables and Codes ... ...... ... ............. . ................... ........ ......... 263 F 1 Factor Loadings for College Experience Construct .... ......... . .... .... ......... 266 H.l Mean and SD of Student Self-Reported HM Competency ... . ................ . 270 H.2 Between Program Effects of HM Competency . .... ...... ...... ...... ... ... ..... .... 271 H.3 Mean and SD of Contribution from the Campus Domain .................. ...... 272 H.4 Betw e en Program Effects of HM Competency from the Campus domain .... .... ...... ........ .... . .... ........ . ... . . .... .... ... . . ......... .......... ... . .... 273 H.5 Mean and SD of contribution from the off-campus domain ............. .... . 274 H.6 Betw e en program Effects of HM Competency from the OfT-campus Domain ............... . ................. ..... . ................... .... .................. .... ........ 275 1.1 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom campus, and o f f-campus domains, controlling for program type predicting managing guest problem competenc y ......... ..... ........ .... ...... ...... .......... ......... . .... ...... 276 1.2 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting maintaining positive customer relations competency ............... . ... . . ........ 276 1.3 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom campus and offcampus domains controllin g for program type predicting demonstration of appearance and poise ............. .... . .... . .... . ....... ............ . 277 I.4 Hie rarchal multiple regression analy s is summary for the classroom campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting communicating orally and in writing .............. .... ... .... ............. . . ..... ........ 277 !.5 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summar y for the classroom campus and off-campus domains controlling for program type predicting maintaining employ e e relations competency .... ........... ............ ....... . ........ 278 I.6 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program t y pe, predicting ability to identify operational problems competency ... .......... . ... ..... .... . ...... ..... . . ... 278 I. 7 Hierarchal multipl e r e gression analysi s s ummary for the classroom campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program typ e predicting maintaining ethical standards comp e tency .......... . ... .................................. 279 1.8 Hierarchal multiple r e gression analy sis summary for the classroom campus and off-campus domains controlling for program ty pe, predicting demon s trate lead e r s hip qualitie s competenc y ...... . .... ... ..... .... . ... ............. 279 XVII

PAGE 18

I.9 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting ability to motivate employees competency ............................................................... 280 l.l 0 Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting understanding legal responsibilities competency ....................................... 280 I.ll Hierarchal multiple regression analysis summary for the classroom, campus and off-campus domains, controlling for program type, predicting maintaining hygiene and safety competency ............................................. 281 1 .l Hotel management course requirements by institution and percentage of credit hours ................................................................................................. 282 1.2 Food and beverage course requirements by institutional type and percentage of credit hours ............................................................................................. 283 1.3 Events recreation, tourism course requirements by institution and percentage of hours .................................................................................................. 283 1.4 Nutrition/dietetics course requirements by institution and percentage of hours credit hours ................................................................................................. 284 1.5 General business course requirements by institutional type and percentage of credit hours ................................................................................................. 284 1.6 General education course requirements by institution and percentage of credit hours .................................................................................................. 285 XVII!

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose ofthe Study As Hospitality Management (HM) programs increase their efforts to attract, retain, and graduate students prepared to enter society and their career, the types of activities that engage students and assist them in achieving competency in their field have become paramount. Large national studies on student engagement did not focus on HM per-se, but identified instructional practices such as active and collaborative learning, diversity, and critical thinking pedagogy that contributed to student engagement and produced positive outcomes on multiple levels (Astin, 1993; Chickering 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991 ). Additional studies have described the importance of student engagement and emphasized the need for college students to remain engaged in purposeful educational activities such as reading, writing and collaborating with peers and faculty (Kuh Hayek Carini Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 200 l; Kuh, 2003, 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Student engagement is a complex ecology of learning that occurs both in and out of the classroom. Therefore the degree to which HM -students perceives their level of competency may come from varied types of engaging activities. For non-specific majors the level of engagement in educationally purposeful activities has contributed to student outcomes such as grades, staying in school, and

PAGE 20

graduation rates (Kuh 2001 Kuh, Pace, & Vesper, 1997) Further study has determined that outside activities beyond the classroom contributed to student outcomes (Chickering, 2006; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Thus, beyond the classroom, student engagement for HM-students may be a dynamic construct where learning is enhanced through quality advising and a supportive campus environment with varied social activities. While the studies related to student engagement provided rich and interesting data none highlighted HM programs and institutions which may differ in terms of student engagement and other experiences Furthermore, off-campus experiences that engage students and provide rich experiences through volunteerism, work experience, and other activities may help or hinder student outcomes and may not be present in all degree fields and schools (Kozar, Horton & Gregoire, 2005) Thus, the ways in which activities both on and off-campus are designed to engage students to develop practical competence in their profession have yet to be explored (Baum, 1991; Christou, 2002; Tas, 1988) The intent of this study was to gather HM-student perceptions of their level of engagement in the college experience as composed of three domains the classroom, campus and off-campus. Student perceptions of their level of competency in HM provided a means to determine how programs differed between schools and to what degree participation in the college experience domains predicted competency. The participants in the study included 437 students in two 2

PAGE 21

HM programs representing a large non-resident four-year public college, and a small private residence college. Problem Statement Graduating from college has become more about the quality of the experience and how satisfied students are with their preparedness to enter the workforce in their chosen profession, and less about where students go to school. A great body of literature has reported activities that centered on students' engagement with peers and faculty was the best predictor of positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1984; Astin 1993; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Chickering, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Studies that used the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data of more than 80,000 college students showed positive correlations between student engagement and achievement benchmarks related to diversity, satisfaction, and student gains at multiple levels (Kuh, et. al 2001; Kuh, 2003, 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). The student engagement studies in the literature identified above were predominately related to factors of student engagement without looking at a particular major or field of study. Furthermore, these studies focused on student outcomes such as perceived gains in general education or overall grades or retention without examining student practical competency in their field of study. Although the depth and breadth of research in HM programs has not been as pervasive as general education, recently the learning environment in HM has been 3

PAGE 22

shown to contain similar pedagogy to the student engagement literature. In HM learning environments students valued educationally purposeful activities such as social learning and collaborating in groups (Campbell & Evans, 2001; Wickens & Tripe, 2006). HM-students demonstrated greater participation and interest when their learning was active and experiential, particularly when involved in internships and work experience (Dart, 2006; Downey & DeVeau 1998; Lefever & Withiam, 1998; Titz & Wollin, 2002). Additional studies reported that students in HM programs frequently worked with assigned peers in their freshman year (Capstick & Fleming, 2002) and their curriculum design benetited from experiential learning and pedagogy such as problem-based learning (Duncan & Y ahya, 2006, LaLopa & McDonald, 2002). The body of literature on non-specific majors or general education was more pervasive than HM programs. Although the HM literature has recently demonstrated similar types of pedagogy research such as cooperative learning, team learning, problem-based learning, and experiential learning, the studies focused on individual course or program efforts and did not demonstrate how the pedagogy and activities in all three domains of the college experience contributed to student competency (Downey & Deveau, 1988; Jacobs, LaLopa, & Sorgule, 2001; Kiser & Partlow, 1999; Kline, Frash, & Stahura, 2004; LaLopa & McDonald, 2002; Lefever & Withiam, 1998; Titz & Wollen, 2002). Searches in the literature 4

PAGE 23

yielded no results for studies that compare how student engagement in the college experience and competency may vary amongst institutions or programs. The student engagement research in non-specific career fields identified unique differences in the ways that students were engaged in the college experience. The studies referred to different Carnegie classifications of schools such as four-year public, private, resident, and nonresident schools. The types of experiences that enhanced the college experience such as athletics social groups student clubs, campus environment, and classroom pedagogy varied in these schools, but there were no studies that described how they differed in terms of student competence in their profession. Additionally, no studies looked at factors that might have predicted positive student outcomes in HM programs or described what factors were successful (Astin, 1993; Chickering, 2006 ; Kuh 2003, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Despite individual course and program efforts to enhance pedagogical practices that engage students in HM programs, faculty and administrators continue to work on the quality of students graduating with a hospitality degree and the effectiveness of their programs. Cheng and Chen (2008) suggested that institutions possess a rich collection of intangible assets from both teachers and the school as a whole; such knowledge could be transferred or managed in ways that cultivate student learning Indeed students may gain practical competency from classroom theory lectures or even virtual simulations (Douglas, Miller, Kwansa, & 5

PAGE 24

Cummings 2007). To ignore aspects of the college experience that occurs in and out of the classroom would deny students opportunities to demonstrate their competency in multiple ways The college experience for HM-students also includes work experience off-campus Working off-campus while going to school may help or hinder their participation in educational purposeful activities (Kozar, Horton & Gregoire 2005). Despite the significant effort that HM programs take to enhance student competency both on campus and at work recent studies have identified training and education needs for graduates that lack management skills (Tesone, 2003) This study proposes that the college experience is a complex ecology of experiences both in and out of the classroom that has yet to be described adequately. The college experience for HM-students may be composed of three domains ; classroom campus and off-campus. The measure of student professional competency may not be a direct reflection of what they achieved in course outcomes such as grades or how much they read or wrote papers but may have been developed through participation in group activities, work experience or college social and athletic activities. Without further study that describes the HM college experience domains and student perceptions of their practical competency institutions may lack the information necessary to foster a college experience and plan a curriculum that provides for competency in the HM field 6

PAGE 25

Conceptual Framework Students who are involved in educationally purposeful activities in the classroom and in certain aspects of the college experience have greater academic achievement (Astin 1993; Pascarella, Edison, Whitt, Hagedorn, Nora, & Terenzini, 1996). The term student involvement is now more widely referred to as student engagement (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). The types of classroom activities that engage the student is similar to learning theories that describe learning as occurring as a result of experience. Student engagement represents a broader construct that scholars use to explain the relationship between educational purposeful activities and the college experience on student achievement. Furthermore, factors that are related to student achievement are identified in cognitive research that describes learning occurring from engaged students that made connections between previous knowledge and the context of their current activities and experiences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Table 1.1 identifies three models of educationally purposeful activities that have emerged from each of the views on learning; student involvement, experiential learning and student engagement. These practices such as active and collaborative learning promote quality interactions with faculty and peers in a socially supportive way (Bandura, 1986, 2000; Kress & Elias, 2006). Moreover, the frequency and effort that students invest in these activities contributes toward student achievement (Astin, \993) By reviewing the studies on student 7

PAGE 26

involvement, engagement, and experiential learning, three models emerged; student achievement, student engagement, and the college experience. Below the name of the model is a list of the types of activities that occurred. It also appeared that there were communalities between the models and that some pedagogy and activities were not mutually exclusive to a particular model. Table 1.1 Mod e l s for Student Achievement, Engag e ment, and the College Experience Student Achievement Grades Credit Hour Production Retention Self-reported grades Self-reported gains Practical competence Personal-social growth Critical thinking Academic challenge General studies growth Problem solving Institutional value Student Engagement Active learning Collaborate with peers Collaborate with faculty Studentfaculty interaction Enriching experiences Class discussions Class presentations Reading and writing Tutoring Conduct research Self inquiry Problem based learning Prompt feedback College Experience Supportive campus environment Enriching experiences Volunteerism Fosters diversity Faculty advising Student life activities Study abroad Field experience Work experience Co-curricular activities Social activities Home activities Campus housing Not e Derived from Astin ( 1993) and Zhao & Kuh (2004) The HM Coll e g e Exp e ri e nce The college experience involves activities that generally occur in the classroom campus, and off-campus. Table 1 1 presents the types of activities that 8

PAGE 27

have been identified in the literature associated with the college experience and student engagement. These activities included social fraternities activities related to work and volunteerism experiential learning study abroad or working in diverse environments (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). It may be possible that in some settings outside of the classroom activities such as student work experience, assigned field work and social activities contributed to their learning. Such relationships may be more pronounced in the professions, particularly when work experience or volunteerism might involve the same professional competencies that are taught in the classroom such as front office management customer service, and supervision. While the literature demonstrates the relationship of participation in the college experience and successful student outcomes, detailed accounts of how such connections contribute to student success is warranted. The professional studies such as HM may have even stronger connections when outside activities directly relate to what is taught in the classroom. (Byrne, 2007; Pace, 1990; Pike, Schroeder, & Berry, 1997). Concept Diagram Figure 1.1 promotes a pictorial diagram of how students may describe engagement activities and the college experience. The literature identified previously pointed to the controllable activities and pedagogy listed along the arrow on the left of the diagram The activities extend from student engagement that occurs on campus toward HM Competency. These activiti e s such a s 9

PAGE 28

collaboration with peers and faculty may have a strong connection to student reported gains in practical competency and are generally contained in one area involving student perceptions of engagement. On campus these items are more controlled by students themselves, administrators, faculty, and support staff. / Diversity Student Activities Class work Collaboration Student Perceptions of Engagement Activities and Pedagogy in class and campus that developHM Competency Student Perceived HMCompetency Activities Work E xperience Spiritual Acti v ities F ri e nds Student Perceptions ofthe Experiences off-campus that developHM Competency Figure 1.1 Relationship of the college experience to HM competency Note Derived from Slavin, Zhao&. Kuh, (2004). and Whitt, Nora Edison. T e r enzi ni, Pascarella ( 1999). On the right side of the diagram is a pictorial description of how students may view the off-campus college experience. In the off-campus domain, there is less control by administrators. There may be some coordination of spiritual activities, social events or work experience through internship Furthermore, this 10

PAGE 29

domain has a similar effect on HM Competency through events listed along the arrow such as work experience, peer relationships, family, and friends. This dissertation describes the complex ecology of student engagement for HM-students as a synergy of both on and off-campus engagement activities. Although the literature on student engagement describes the relationship of variables such as engagement pedagogy in the classroom, advising, and student activities contributing toward student practical competency, less is known how student perceptions of their programs differ and may relate to their competency in HM. Both engagement pedagogy in the classroom and experiences on and off campus have a synergistic effect on the development of student perception of practical competency. The circular arrow in the center demonstrates how the classroom, campus and off-campus domains are a complex construct that influences student competency. For example, if a class project ofworking in groups contributes toward a student perception of collaboration with peers and faculty it may appear on the left side of the diagram. But if the teacher also integrates class activities with social groups, fraternities, clubs or work experiences, then the line between the college experience and classroom pedagogy becomes less clear. These types of engagement activities may be perceived by students as occurring in either dimension or as a complex synergy of both. I 1

PAGE 30

Student Engagement in H M In the literature related to student engagement large national studies such as the National Study on Student Engagement, (NSSE) provided strong evidence that educationally purposeful activities contributed to student outcomes on multiple levels (Kuh 2005. The longitudinal NSSE study has provided a valid form of measurement that summarized the types of activities that were related to student outcomes (Kuh, 2001 ). Table 1.2 presents the types of pedagogy and activities derived from the NSSE survey. The summary is important because it describes the types of activities known to be related to student engagement and identifies that the activities tend to occur in three domains This study proposes that the types of activities and pedagogy derived from the NSSE survey will serve as a model for the HM college experience. The HM College Experience Model contains three domains classroom, campus, and off-campus. Table 1.2 presents some activities that may be more relevant to the types of courses offered. HM coursework includes laboratory based courses such as food and beverage. These classes are highly experiential and require students to work in groups, conduct hands on skill practice and have close interactions with faculty and peers. Additionally, some HM programs require work experience, internship, and volunteer activities. 12

PAGE 31

Table 1.2 Proposed Hospitality Management College Experience Model Classroom Campus Off-campus classroom lectures classroom presentations independent study comprehensive exams senior research capstone courses diverse student body experiential labs research projects reading interactions with faculty interaction with peers debates/discussions interaction with peers tutoring interactions with a cohort learning community mentoring from faculty college social activities college or intramural athletics fraternity/sorority student clubs/activities campus activities student government interactions with faculty Note. Derived from Kuh, (200 1 ). Competency in H M community projects electronic medium (internet, video, podcast, etc.) volunteer work diverse coworkers spiritual activities work experience social reading study abroad Significant effort has resulted in literature that provides a means for measuring competency in HM in very specific fields within hospitality management such as club management, food and beverage, and others (Breiter & Hoart, 2000; Dopson, 2004; Jeou-Shyan & HsinYi, 2006; Perdue, Ninemeier, & Woods, 2000; Perdue, Woods, & Ninemeier, 2005; Tas, LaBrecque, & Clayton, 1996). Tesone and Ricci (2006) presented an alternative assessment of practical HM competency, but the study lacked specificity to HM and could be applicable to multiple career fields. The broader career field of HM has the most pervasive verification of one instrument developed by Tas ( 1983, 1988) replicated in international settings (Baum, 1990, 1991; Christou & Eaton, 2000). Table 1.3 presents the 11 essential HM competencies prevalent in HM literature. Christou 13

PAGE 32

(2002) analyzed three separate studies in Greece, United Kingdom, and the United States that used the same competencies to assess how HM businesses and leaders rated the importance of each competency. The mean scores of the three studies resulted in the 11 essential competencies are presented in Table 1.3. Since the Christou (2002) study was the most pervasive in HM literature, it forms the basis of HM competency analysis in this dissertation. Table 1.3 HM Essential Competencies Study Rank Overall Rank HM Competency M Greece UK USA Manage guest problems with 4.87 understanding and sensitivity 2 Develops positive customer relations 4.76 3 6 5 3 Demonstrates professional appearance 4.73 2 5 3 and poise 4 Communicates effectively both written 4.70 9 3 3 and orally 5 Strives to achieve positive working 4 66 4 4 6 relationships with employees 6 Identifies operational problems 4.63 8 13 12 7 Maintain professional and ethical 4 60 6 9 2 standards in the work environment 8 Possesses needed leadership qualities to 4.59 5 9 7 achieve organizational objectives 9 Motivates employees to achieve desired 4.57 7 8 8 performance 10 Follows the legal responsibilities 4.54 11 : 7 14 associated with hotel operations 11 Follows hygiene and safety regulations to 4.50 13 2 13 ensure compliance bv organi z ation Note. From Christou, (2002), p. 27. 14

PAGE 33

Summary Research on student involvement in college has evolved from studies that indicated an active learning environment contributed toward student outcomes and persistence to a more complex ecology of engagement that comprises three domains the classroom, campus, and off-campus (Astin, 1993 ; Pascarella, et al. 1996; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). In the classroom domain, experiential activities that encourage the student to engage with peers and faculty on course objectives contribute toward student achievement on multiple levels (Bandura, 1986, 2000; Kress & Elias 2006) The types of activities that occur on campus such as participation in clubs, student government, and athletics are also associated with positive student outcomes (Kellog Commision 1997 ; Pace 1990; Pike, et al. 1997). For HM-students in particular, off-campus activities including volunteer, family, spiritual activities, and work experiences may present a relevant means to compliment classroom objectives and directly relate to their HM competency. While the literature regarding student engagement and HM management education has demonstrated the types of pedagogy in the college experience as effective means for improving student outcomes, no studies have made the connection between student engagement in the college experience and HM competency (Breiter & Hoart, 2000; Dopson 2004 ; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin Yi, 2006 ; Perdue, et al. 2005). There are known competencies considered essential by the literature (Baum 1991; Christou 2002; Tas 1983 1998), but no studies have 15

PAGE 34

examined how student engagement in the college experience contributes toward such competency. Furthermore the college experience for HM-students has not been defined. The identification of the types of engagement activities in the college experience that contribute toward student competency have great value to the stakeholders of graduating students including college administrators, industry leaders, and the student. Research Questions Student engagement in the college experience has been demonstrated as a complex ecology consisting of three domains, including the classroom, campus, and off-campus. For HM-students, the college experience remains undefined in the literature and the degree to which participation in the domains of the college experience contributes toward their competency is unknown. Despite known measures for evaluating student level of HM competency, no studies have examined how students perceive their competency or how their level of engagement in the college experience contributes toward their competency. Less is known on how schools differ in their approach to student engagement and the college experience. With such a vast need for understanding the college experience in HM programs, this study asked five questions: I. How do four-year public and private colleges differ in student perceptions of hospitality management competency? 2. What is the relationship between hospitality management student perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical 16

PAGE 35

competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and a private college? 3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and a private college? 4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus engagement activities differ between a four-year public and a private college? 5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and a private college? Methodology The methodology in this study was descriptive in nature based upon a multi-case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a 2003b). The multi-case approach allowed for descriptions of participant experiences and used their own descriptions to describe the phenomenon of the HM college experience (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The approach included a triangulation (Knafl & Breitmayer, 1989) of three domains that described the college experience through administrator descriptions, student surveys, and interviews. The analysis of the data included a mixed method of both quantitative and qualitative measures. The analysis of HM competency included descriptive measures of student perceptions of their level of competency and to what degree participation in the college experience domains predicted their level of competency. The quantitative analysis was enhanced through validation measures ofthe II HM competencies 17

PAGE 36

forming a reliable scale with internal consistency and factor analysis to validate the college experience comprised of three domains. Participants included 427 students in two schools a 4-year public nonresident college and a 4-year private resident college. Instrumentation included a survey based upon the 11 HM competencies presented by Christou (2002) that measured student perceptions of their competency and contribution from the HM college experience domains. Quantitative measures from the survey were complimented by 15 student interviews at both schools Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation comprises six chapters Chapter 1 includes the purpose of the study, conceptual framework research questions and an overview of the research methodology. Chapter 2 explores the relevant literature on student engagement in the HM college experience and develops an understanding of the types of activities that contribute toward student development. Chapter 3 is a description of the research methods in the multi-case study design. The participants instrumentation, procedures, and analysis are presented. Chapter 4 is the first of two results chapters. The first results chapter addresses the first two research questions through quantitative analysis. This chapter presents student perceptions of their level of HM competency and the predictability of competency from participation in the college experience domains. Chapter 5 discusses the college experience and addresses the last three research questions through a 18

PAGE 37

triangulation of qualitative data related to the college experience domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus. Chapter 6 contains the conclusions of the study, implications to stakeholders, and suggestions for future research. 19

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Background In John Dewey's influential text Democracy and Education (1916) he argued for an education system that would prepare students for their place in society. Such education "cannot take place by direct conveyance of beliefs, emotions, and knowledge It takes place through the intermediary of the environment" (p. 26) He recognized that students came from diverse backgrounds and experiences. The previous experience remained a part of the learning process, whereas knowledge occurred in reflection of prior experiences. When he wrote about the importance of learning through experience and reflection Dewey influenced future educational researchers that developed modem studies on student engagement. In his later research he promoted a more progressive educational system that he considered "development from within" (Dewey, 1938 p. 17). In the ideal learning classroom he described a type of learning that develops environments that foster experiences for learners rather than pontificate knowledge from experts through lecture. Today we have specific career fields in college that not only prepare students for society but specific career fields such as HM. In these programs students are learning similarly to the way that John Dewey described. The complex 20

PAGE 39

ecology of the classroom, campus, and off-campus domains develops student competency in their profession through various means. Students likely develop competency in HM through a reflection of experiences not only in the classroom, but through their work and activities on and off-campus. In this chapter the literature associated to the modem student engagement literature is explored. The discussion includes large scale studies in student engagement that were in non specific career fields, pedagogy in HM, and means to measure HM competency. The purpose therefore is to present a framework of study that is grounded in empirical research. Furthermore, the literature presented here will provide a means of comparison for the results of the dissertation and the implications for future research National Study on Student Learning Literature In the early 1990s student engagement began to emerge as a term to describe the student learning experience (Astin, 1993). The studies and major textbooks identified in The National Study on Student Learning (NSSL) examined Astin s involvement theory by tracking freshman in a four-year longitudinal study on outcomes associated with cognitive and affective development (The Kellog Commission & National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges on the Future of State and Land Grand Universities 1997). The results confirmed that the most important forms of involvement were academic involvement, 21

PAGE 40

involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups (Astin, 1984, 1993, Kellog Commission, 1997). Pascarella et al. { 1996) used the NSSL data to explain the relationship between student engagement in first year experience programs and cognitive development. The authors were concerned that student s who came from varied preparation levels motivations and genders might have caused inconsistent responses between survey participants The study hypothesized that under prepared students might achieve more due to the pedagogies that enhanced the student experience particularly when they learn in a social way with support and collaboration with peers and teachers. Results however indicated little difference in student performance despite their background or preparedness in college or where they went to school. Along with the identification of the relationship of student engagement to cognitive development the NSSL studies represented the connection of student engagement to retention namely the financial and s ocial cost s of losing students due to dropping out {Tin to 1993). Some of the cause s and cures of student attrition (leaving college) and persistence (staying in college and credit hour achievement) pointed directly at the social and intellectual fac ets of the student experience in the first year (Tinto 1987 Tinto & Goodsell 1994). Follow-up studies served to 22

PAGE 41

promote engagement pedagogy as they related to student attrition and persistence (Tinto, 1998, 2002). The Carnegie Foundation (1998) responded to studies on student involvement and retention and called for institutions to address the lack of student engagement in the college experience. The study was initiated by the Boyer Commission resulting in a commonly used description as the Boyer Report (Katkin, 2003; McDonald, Brown & Littleton, 1999). Over the next decade the Boyer Report was seen as the impetus for the creation, maintenance and evaluation of varied pedagogies that enhance the student experience such as Freshman-year Interest Groups, (FIGs) learning communities, and collaborative learning (Stoneybrook Reinvention Center, 2001 ). Large Scale Student Engagement Literature Following the Boyer Report much was unknown about the ways in which student engagement related to student outcomes. The report recommended an increase in longitudinal, qualitative, and multi-campus approaches to documenting the student experience and how student engagement related to outcomes. Kuh (200 1) responded to the Boyer Report by conducting the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The study remains as the largest longitudinal study on student engagement (Kuh, 2003, 2005). The NSSE survey began with 275 institutions in 2000, but currently involves more than 800 institutions. The survey 23

PAGE 42

measures student perceptions of their frequency and effort in educationally purposeful activities both in and out of the classroom. The survey is a quantitative analysis that demonstrates that educationally purposeful activities are related to student outcomes, but it lacks rich qualitative descriptions of how and why the phenomenon of student engagement contributes to beneficial student outcomes (Kuh, 2001, Kuh et al. 2001; Kuh, Pace & Vesper, 1997). Zhao & Kuh (2004) used the NSSE data to examine the relationship between activities that engage the student and outcomes. The study recognized that students come to college with varied backgrounds and level of preparation. Once in college they participated in class activities as well as activities on campus. Both the in and out of class experiences were thought to contribute to student outcomes. Unique to this study was a large data set involving 365 four-year colleges and 80,4 79 respondents that controlled for the level of student preparation compared to less prepared students. The study used variables from the student engagement literature, such as time spent studying, engaging with peers, faculty or social activities to explain what types of educationally purposeful activities contributed to successful outcomes, regardless of their level of preparation. The most significant value of the study was the identification of dimensions of student engagement and three measures of self-reported outcomes. Table 2.1 identifies the three scales of 24

PAGE 43

student engagement. The table also lists the types of activities that may identify measurable dimensions of student engagement and the college experience. Table 2.1 Depend e nt Measures in the NSSE Data Within Three Scales Three Scales of Student Engagement Engagement Activities I. Academic effort 2 Higher order thinking skills required in the courses 3. Academic integration 4. Active and collaborative learning 5. Interaction with faculty members 6. Diversity-related experiences Qualit y of Campus Environment I Quality of academic advising experiences 2. Supportive campus environment (academic and social support qualit y of relations with peers faculty members and administrators 3. Satisfaction with the overall college experience Student Outcomes I. Gains in personal and social development 2. Gains in general education 3. Gains in practical competence Note. From Zhao and G. Kuh (2004), p. 123. Prior to the development of the three dimensions in Table 2.1, related literature identified a need to demonstrate what types of pedagogy were contributing to student engagement (Cabrera, Nora Bemai, Terenzini, & Pascarella 1998; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Pascarella, et al. 1996; Slavin, 1995; Whitt, 1999). More recently, Zhao and Kuh (2004) developed and validated 25

PAGE 44

scales that address the connection between pedagogy and student reported personal gains and perceptions of the quality of the campus environment. The study lacked the ability to randomly assign students into groups, so the researchers set controls for student preparation measured by SAT I ACT scores and other indicators of potential academic success. The results in Table 2 2 indicate that student engagement was linked with student academic performance engagement and satisfaction. The three scales of student engagement identified in Table 2.2 were useful for identifying which dependent variables such as engagement and satisfaction contributed to student outcomes, but did not single out a particular field of study. The results provided specific connections by revealing correlations between student engagement and the college experience on the three student outcomes; gains in personal and social development, gains in general education, and gains in practical competency. Furthermore, the study did not identify what domains in the college experience that contributed toward student outcomes, nor was there a measure of competency as a student. For this dissertation one of the learning outcomes identified by Zhao & Kuh (2004) gains in practical competency, will serve as potential outcome for HM-students, referred to as HM Competency. 26

PAGE 45

Table 2.2 R elationship of Engagement Activities, Campus Environment and Outcomes First-Year Senior Measure Standardized Effect Standardized Effect R egression Size Regression Size Coefficie nt Coefficient Engagement Activ i ties Academic Efforts 0 1 57* 0 .32 0 120* 0 28 Higher Order Thinking 0 201 0.40 0 .151 0 35 Academic Integration 0.193* 0 39 0 164* 0 38 Active and Collaborative Learning 0.264* 0 .53 0 237* 0 54 Int eractions with Faculty 0 299* 0.60 0 224* 0.51 Diversity Experiences 0 205* 0.41 0 156* 0 .36 Campus Environment Quality of Academic Advising 0 .118* 0 .23 0 076* 0.17 Supportive Camp u s Environmen t 0.186* 0.37 0 .141 0 32 Satisfactio n 0 1 26* 0 .25 0 .101 0.23 Learning Outcomes Gains in Personal and Social 0.239* 0.48 0.175* 0.40 Gains in Practical Competence 0.224* 0.45 0.157* 0 36 General Edu cation Gains 0 .181 0.36 0.105* 0 .24 p <.OO 1, (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Forms of Measurement in Large Scale Studies In the literature related to studen t engagement in l arge national studies identified earlier there was strong evidence that educationally purposeful activities contributed to student outcomes on multiple levels. The substantial efforts ofNSSL and NSSE included vast numbers of st ud ents, some of wh ich were HM-students. 27

PAGE 46

However, less research demonstrated qualitatively the rich stories and descriptions from students that identify the types of activities that have contributed to their level of practical competency in the HM field. The longitudinal NSSE study has provided a valid form of measurement that summarized the types of activities that were related to student outcomes. Clearly, student engagement was related to student outcomes, but less was known of how such relationships occurred. The researchers gauged the relationship of student engagement to outcomes by developing five benchmarks in their conceptual framework (Kuh, 2001 ). One of those benchmarks for example was active and collaborative learning. To measure how collaborative efforts in school contributed to their development the survey asked respondents to rate the frequency of participating in activities such as working with students in and out of class tutoring or discussing ideas outside of class with a faculty member. The frequency of such activities was recorded on a Likert-type scale from very often to never. Each of the self-reported activities represented a variable that in combination with other activities formed a scale to measure the level of active and collaborative learning. The quantitative analysis of the NSSE survey validated the combination of collaborative items in a scale and examined the relationship that occurred between scaled benchmarks and outcomes such as self reported grades. persistence in school or other purposeful activities. These statistical results provided strong connections 28

PAGE 47

between purposeful engagement activities and student outcomes, but lacked the stories that explained how student engagement occurred, what value they were to the student and how the student perceived that engagement activities contributed to their competency in their field of study. Therefore the NSSE survey functioned as a validated form of measurement for known activities that contributed to positive student outcomes but lacked qualitative data within the same set of respondents. The study was further limited by an absence of a student voice to explain how such engagement activities contributed to their level of competency (National Study of Student Engagement, 2009). For the purpose of this dissertation the value of the NSSE survey is that it validates the types of activities that contributed to student engagement in three general areas; a) classroom and laboratory pedagogy, b) sponsored campus activities and c) off-campus work experience and social activities Table 1.2 identified previously in Chapter I represents the general areas that were derived from the NSSE survey. The summary is valuable to this dissertation because it describes the types of activities known to be related to student engagement and identifies that the activities tend to occur in three domains in the college experience, classroom, campus, and off-campus. By summarizing the activities in three domains students may be queried to gain their perceptions of engagement activities in the HM college experience. The list of activities can also benefit the development of in-depth interview questions given to students to draw out their 29

PAGE 48

perceptions of what activities contributed to their level of practical competency in the field and how such activities fostered their development. Qualitati v e Stud e nt Engagem e nt Studi e s Not all of the student engagement literature was purely quantitative. To provide qualitative data that connects student engagement to learning the Association for Higher Education sponsored a study of the 80 000 respondents in the NSSE data to find out what effective colleges do to promote success In 2002, Project DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice) looked at institutions with higher-than-predicted graduation rates and top results in five benchmarks. This study was unique in that the thorough examination of qualitative measures such as administrative reports interviews, and observations indicated that institutions had similarities and differences in the types of activities that engaged students both in the classroom and on campus. The researchers visited 20 schools and examined both quantitatively and qualitatively why the schools achieved more than most {Kuh 2005). The researchers did not focus on any specific type of school ; instead they looked at small, large urban, rural, historically black majority white, commuter and residential, and non-research institutions. The study confirmed that each of the types of schools shared common characteristics. However, none of the analysis included a specific professional competency 30

PAGE 49

measurement in the achievement of students or how their engagement activities and the college experience contributed toward successful outcomes. Demonstrating a Need for Study in Hospitality Management While the large national studies such as NSSL NSSE, and DEEP have examined traditional schools and provided a valid instrument for measuring the relationship of student engagement to outcomes there is no evidence of connecting student engagement to professional competency in HM For this reason a need emerges to examine the phenomenon student engagement in the HM college experience. Furthermore, schools may differ in their design of the college experience. The large scale student engagement studies frequently controlled for different institutional types in their quantitative analysis. The current need is to compliment the quantitative measures of student engagement and their contribution to HM competency with qualitative descriptions of the domains in the college experience. By describing the ways in which schools structure programs and design pedagogy and learning environments to foster valuable student outcomes much will be learned about how the college experience relates to student perceptions of their competency in HM. These pedagogy activities, and experiences that occur in the domains of the college experience represent a phenomenon that may be highly related to professional competency Searches in the literature revealed no studies that demonstrated how activities that engaged students such as collaborating with 31

PAGE 50

peers, time spent writing papers, outside work experience, and social groups related to their professional competency. Much of the student engagement research did not address a specific professional competency, rather it focused on student gains in general education and performance factors such as grades or gains in general education. Such outcomes did not indicate the level of preparation students had for one particular profession or role in society. However, we have a long history of educating students for professions such as accounting hospitality management medicine, and law. In many of these types of programs students also engage in groups that have highly active and experiential labs and take classes in a cohort. Such engaging activities have contributed much to the student outcomes in schools that participated in large national studies, but no evidence was found in the literature on how such engaging activities contributed to their professional competency The types of institutions that commonly have HM programs are similar to the Carnegie types described in the NSSE study (Kuh, 2001 ). Of the nine Carnegie types four general types of institutions emerge as important to this study. They were public and private four-year colleges, and resident and non-resident colleges. The other categories represent variations of these types such as high and moderate level research institutions which offer graduate degrees and associate degree programs. 32

PAGE 51

Aspects of Student Engagement in HM HM programs offer experiential classrooms that are highly engaging for the student. The literature on student engagement did not specifically target such experiential career fields. HM programs vary in the types of majors or concentrations of study. Common to the field is concentrations in hotel, food and beverage, events, tourism, nutrition, parks, recreation, sports, and institutional management. The types of courses in these programs often include laboratory based courses such as culinary arts, beverage management, and dining room services. These classes are highly experiential and require students to work in groups, conduct hands on skill practice and have close interactions with faculty and peers. The type of classroom pedagogy and campus activities that are controllable by HM administrators and faculty were described in the HM literature as requiring an active collaborative environment that is Ieamer centered. Dale and McCarthy (2006) used focus groups to determine that learner preferences varied amongst HM-students. These differences created pedagogic challenges for academic staff because HM classroom pedagogy often involves students collaborating in groups Dart (2006) described teaching and group learning strategies that were designed to increase attendance and contribution. To improve performance the researcher introduced group presentations into the curriculum Results indicated that students remained more engaged and contributed more in class when they were involved in 33

PAGE 52

group work. The dynamic of working in groups was also investigated by Capstick and Fleming (2002) where he proposed a design for HM-students from the second year to mentor first year students. With peer learning support and working in groups, students were reported to assist one another in the development of knowledge. Learning in groups employs a cooperative learning strategy that causes people to interact together to accomplish course content, which can be problematic if some group members don't contribute. Kline Frash, and Stahura, (2004) investigated social loafing within a HM course to determine if implementing peer evaluation reduced student perceptions of their peers loafing or not contributing to the group assignment. Results indicated that peer evaluations did not diminish the level of social loafing. Therefore for educators planning classroom pedagogy it is important to vary activities and monitor group work to ensure it is beneficial to all learning styles. Some educators are beginning to use pedagogy common to other fields that have demonstrated success in HM. Chang and Chien (2006) demonstrated that Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) enhanced a culinary arts course by emphasizing science theory to improve learning. By integrating PBL into the classroom learners' motivation improved, but not competency It also improved teamwork and communication amongst peers. The researchers pointed to needs to improve the design of the PBL assignments Other researchers in HM have described how such 34

PAGE 53

assignments and course activities could have been organized more similar with PBL literature, (Lalopa & McDonald, 2006). Duncan and Yahya (2006) described the advantages and disadvantages of implementing PBL in a sports management course. Conclusions determined that good activity design demonstrated potential for students to enjoy their coursework and remain engaged compared to traditional lecture. Pedagogy such as group work and PBL are highly experiential and similar to the pedagogy described in the student engagement literature that relates to student outcomes. Administrators design the experiential pedagogy in the classrooms and laboratories to closely develop student competency Kiser and Partlow ( 1999) described how entrenched experiential learning is in the HM curriculum. The sample included 100 HM programs and examined course content that was experiential in nature. Results indicated that 95% of programs had mandatory courses that included experiential learning components Although programs varied in the level of activities, experiential learning was a pervasive pedagogy in course content. For the off-campus domain some HM programs demonstrated a loose control over learning by requiring work experience internship and even volunteer activities. These off-campus experiences may not be as controllable as experiences that occur on campus and may conflict with their study time. Kozar, Horton, and Gregoire (2009) investigated how HM-students spent their time during the school 35

PAGE 54

week. Results indicated that most students worked while going to school and that the more time they spent working the less time they spent studying and going to class. Although the study determined that student engagement in school was less if students worked while going to school, the study did not measure the level of student competency. Students may still learn in multiple domains of the college experience especially when work experience mirrors the course objectives. With the varied pedagogic approaches to organizing the HM classroom faculty and administrators require additional awareness ofhow campus activities and off-campus experiences contribute to their competency. Searches in the HM literature revealed no studies that view the college experience as a whole and describe how the domains in the college experience contribute to HM competency. Cheng and Chen (2008) suggested that institutions have a broader collection of assets than they may know of The assets include teachers and the school as a whole that work to cultivates student growth. New pedagogy continues to emerge such as virtual simulations which have been demonstrated as valuable means of explaining course content (Douglas, et al. 2007). But a great need remains to describe the college experience for HM-students and determine how the domains of the college experience contribute to their competency Measuring Practical Competency in HM Various measures for practical competency in HM have been proposed. In most cases researchers surveyed a combination of faculty, administrators and 36

PAGE 55

industry leaders to gain a sense of agreement of characteristics, measurable objectives, and competencies that a student should attain before graduation. Of these measures some focused on specific concentrations within the hospitality field such as food and beverage, hotel management property management, e-commerce information technology, and club management (Baum, 1990; Breiter & Hoart 2000; Buergermeister, 1983; Chan & Coleman 2004; Dopson 2004 ; Fjelstul 2007; Jeou-Shyan & Hsin-Yi 2006; Kay & Russette, 2000; Perdue, et al. 2000; Perdue, Woods, & Ninemeir, 2005; Tas, LaBrecque, & Clayton, 1996). These measures would not serve comparisons of the HM field as a whole nor would they be appropriate when comparing program differences because they were too specific in nature. Tas (1983, 1988) developed the most widely used instrument to gauge HM competency. The measure was a result of an unpublished doctoral dissertation that determined competencies for entry level hotel management trainees in the United States. The study was replicated with minor changes to the wording of the competencies in the United Kingdom (Baum, 1991) and in Greece (Christou & Eaton 2000). The types of competencies considered essential to each study identified above were discussed by Christou (2002) to identify similarities and differences in expert rankings of HM competency in the three studies. The top 11 competencies considered essential by the three studies appears in Table 2.3. The expanded 36 37

PAGE 56

competencies are presented in Appendix A. The remaining competencies represented much more general characteristics that HM graduates should master. Table 2.3 Rank Order of Essential Competencies for Management Trainees in Differ e nt Countries Rank Competencies Mean Greece UK USA Order Manages guest problems with understanding 4.87 and sensitivity 2 Develops positive customer relations 4.76 3 6 5 3 Demonstrates professional appearance and 4 .73 2 5 3 pOISe 4 Communicates effectively both written and 4.70 9 3 3 orally 5 Strives to achieve positive working 4.66 4 4 6 relationships with employees 6 Identifies operational problems 4.63 8 13 12 7 Maintain professional and ethical standards 4 60 6 9 2 in the work environment 8 Possess needed leadership qualities to 4 59 5 9 7 achieve organizational objectives 9 Motivates employees to achieve desired 4.57 7 8 8 performance 10 Follows the legal responsibilities associated 4.54 1 1 7 14 with hotel operations 11 Follows hygiene and safety regulations to 4.50 13 '1 13 ensure comEliance bx: organization Note. From Christou, (2002), p 27. Te so ne and Ricci (2006) developed another measure of practical competencies for entry-level hospitality workers The study was similar to the competencies described by Christou (2002) and resulted in general competencies 38

PAGE 57

that were applicable to HM, but not necessarily unique to HM. The Tesone & Ricci study was important because the scale was validated by maximum likelihood estimation to extract factors ofprofessional competency. Three factors emerged that explained 74.08% of all of the variable variances. Table 2.4 identifies the top three competencies in each of the factors that emerged from the analysis; knowledge, skills, and ability, and attitude (Tesone & Ricci, 2006). The expanded analysis includes additional competencies, but like Christou (2002) the results are general competencies that may not represent all of the valuable skills an entry level employee brings to their job. Table 2.4 Top Three Pra c titioner P ercept ions of Knowledge Skills and Attiwdes Rank Competency N Mean Standard Deviation Knowledge Knowledge of grooming and professional image 155 4.43 .83 standards 2 Knowledge of guest services standards 156 4.28 .82 3 Knowledge ofthe realities involved in this type of work 156 4 .11 .94 Skills and Ability I Ability to work as part of a team 155 4.57 .73 2 Effective lis tening, verbal and written communication 155 4.51 .70 skills 3 Ability to project a professional image 156 4.50 .73 Attitude 1 Takes personal pride in satisfying the needs of others 154 4.31 .76 2 Prefer s helping others before satisfying the needs of the 154 4 .23 .79 self 3 Tendency to mov e toward possibilities as opposed to 155 4.18 .83 avoiding negative outcomes Note From Tcsone and Ricci (2006), p 59. 39

PAGE 58

To develop the types of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for future HM managers Tesone and Ricci (2006) surveyed members ofthe Central Florida Hotel and Lodging Association to determine job competency expectations that hospitality managers should have upon graduation. The study built upon previous literature identified earlier and others that described hospitality competency in four general areas of knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (Chung-Herrera, Enz & Lankau, 2003; Lin 2002). Similar to previous work, the researchers used industry experts and focus groups to develop a pilot questionnaire. The experts screened low rated competencies and the final survey was submitted to the larger set of respondents (n = 156) In the literature related to HM competency the major results of the studies were to develop an instrument to measure competency, whether in specific fields or the broader hospitality career field. The studies shared similarities in that they interviewed expert panels, students, and industry leaders to improve validity of the instruments However, none of these studies used the instruments to gauge employee skills or competency. Furthermore they often recommended that institutions use the instruments to devise curriculum changes and course activities that foster the development of the competencies Not a single study measured student perceptions of how they may have achieved on such competency assessments nor did they explain student perceptions of how activities that engaged them in the classroom and the college experience contributed to such outcomes. 40

PAGE 59

The studies in specific career fields such as club management and e commerce mentioned earlier have competencies that are to specific to a particular major or concentration and would not serve as a way to measure a HM program with multiple concentrations Therefore to maintain a reasonable scope to this dissertation and include competencies that have meaning to multiple concentrations within the field, the 11 essential competencies become the form of measurement for student perceptions of HM competency Summary Student engagement describes a learning construct that explains the constructivist nature of connections between purposeful engaging activities and student achievement. Student achievement which in part represents learning, evolves from student reflection on their experiences not simple experience itself. The purposeful activities promote increases in student time and effort collaborating with peers, faculty and full integration into the college experience. Through such experiences students increase their level of social learning and have more positive interactions (Astin, 1993; Dewey, 1938; Tinto, 1993 ). Some studies are beginning to demonstrate significant tangible and intrinsic connections of student engagement to achievement on multiple benchmarks (Kuh 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). More study is needed that adds rich qualitative data on the structure of these communities and how the engagement pedagogy contributes to student achievement and value in the college experience. No studies examine 41

PAGE 60

highly experiential programs such as HM These programs have students that are engaged in varied pedagogy in the college experience but no studies explain how such activities relate to their practical competency in HM (Capstic & Fleming 2002; Chang & Chien, 2006; Dart 2006). Significant effort has resulted in HM literature that provided a means for measuring practical competency in HM. Some of this effort was in specific fields within HM such as club management, food and beverage, and others (Breiter & Hoart 2000; Dopson, 2004; Jeou-Shyan & HsinYi, 2006 ; Perdue, et al. 2000; Perdue, et al. 2005; Tas et al. 1996). The broader career field of hospitality has the most pervasive verification of one instrument developed by Tas (1983 1988) and replicated in international settings (Baum, 1991; Christou & Eaton, 2000). Tesone & Ricci (2006) presented an alternative assessment of practical HM competency but lacked specificity to HM and could be applicable to multiple career fields. No study measured student perceptions of their competency or explained how they perceived their college activities and experiences as contributing to specific competency in their chosen career field. Additionally, no studies described the different types of hospitality schools and how experiences at those schools may have differed in student perceptions of practical competency in HM. As colleges attempt to compete in the current climate of accountability (Hunt, Carruthers, Callan, Ewell & National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006) such research will help institutions prioritize their limited 42

PAGE 61

resources. To assist the field in understanding how HM programs differ in terms of the pedagogical practices of student engagement and the college experience this dissertation investigates how these experiences relate to student perceptions of their practical competency in HM. 43

PAGE 62

CHAPTER3 METHODOLOGY Background The intent of this study was to gather student perceptions of competency in HM, examine how HM programs among institutional types differed in terms of student perceptions of engagement activities in the classroom, campus, and offcampus domains, and to describe how such engaging activities contributed toward self-reported gains in competency in HM. To this end, five research questions were posed: I. How do four-year public and private colleges differ in student perceptions of hospitality management competency? 2. What is the relationship between hospitality management student perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and a private college? 3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and a private college? 4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus engagement activities differ between a four-year public and a private college? 5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and a private college? 44

PAGE 63

The identification of the types of activities that engaged students in the classroom, campus and off-campus domains relied upon an examination of official school documents a written survey of student reported level of competency in HM and student interviews. The analysis was consistent with a multi-case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin 2003a, 2003b ) The multi-case approach allowed me to develop descriptions of participant experiences and use their own descriptions to describe the phenomenon (see Figure 2) in a constructivist approach (Baxter & Jack, 2008). According to Yin (2003a) case study was appropriate for the types of" how" and "why" questions that occurred in the research questions described above. Design The methodology included a triangulation (Creswell 2008 ; Knafl & Breitmayer 1989) of three domains that described the college experience and student perceptions of practical competency in HM. Table 3.1 identifies the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative measures used to address the first three research questions (Oenzin & Lincoln, 2008). The last two research questions were addressed in quantitative measures. The first of three areas of data collection was an examination of the official college catalog that included descriptions of the college mission statement program major and minor descriptions, campus facilities, and course descriptions. The descriptions of the three departments and campus programs identified what types of classroom and sponsored campus programs were available to students. Further analysis of qualitative and quantitative 45

PAGE 64

data was necessary to understand to what degree students participated in and valued such engagement activities and programs. Table 3.1 Data Collection Strategies Research Questions Qualitative Methods Quantitati ve Methods l How does a fouryea r MANOVA public and private college differ in student perceptions ofhospitality management competency? 2. What is the relationship Hierarchal Linear between hospitality Regression management student perceptions of engagement to se lf-reported gains in practical competence in hospitality management at a four-year public and private college? 3. How do hospitality College Catalog Survey Frequency management student Student Int erviews Course Requirements perceptions of clas s room Interview Frequency engagement pedagogy differ b e tween a four-year public and private college? 4. How do hospitality College Cata log Survey Frequency management student Student Interviews Interview Frequency perceptions of campus engagement activities differ between a four-year public and private college ) 5. How do hospitality College Catalog Survey Frequency management student Student Interviews Interview Frequency p e rceptions of off-campus engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and private college? To describe the types of activities that students participated in and their selfreported perceptions of practical competency in HM-students at each school 46

PAGE 65

completed a survey (Appendix B). The survey included a measure oflevel of contribution that students perceived occurred from the three domains of the HM college experience model identified in Table 1.2; classroom, campus, and off campus. Additional data included descriptions of the college experience in each program and interviews with students (Nealy, 1992). Participants To assist in the process of interviewing students, administrators, faculty, and examining records I gained human subject approval at two western schools (Career College and Technical College). The names of these schools were changed to protect their identity as prescribed by the research protocol approved by each school. I purposely selected these schools because they represented Carnegie types in the student engagement literature discussed in Chapter 2 (Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). By purposefully sampling these schools I obtained a representation of a public and private school, large and small school, and a resident and non-resident school which represented six of the nine Carnegie types. The first of two schools in this study was Technical College (TC) a large four-year public college. This school was an urban commuting only campus that had 499 full-time students studying HM. Career College (CC) was selected because it represented a small private residence college. The program had fewer overall students (220) and residence halls. Because CC was a residence college students that lived on campus may have had a dramatically different campus experience than 47

PAGE 66

commuting students. The school had highly sophisticated laboratories and an active internship program to provide outside work experience D e partment Chairpersons The department Chairperson from the HM department at each school was asked to provide an official school catalog and basic student demographics. I summarized the materials into a program description and invited each representative to review the summary for accuracy thereby enhancing content validity. The descriptions were important because they represented the types of opportunities available to students in the college experience domains that may have contributed to their professional competency Student Parti c ipant s For the student survey I conducted paper surveys directly with students in assigned courses at each school. l consulted with the department chairperson to identify courses that had a high concentration of students majoring in HM. The intent was to purposefully sample (Miles & H ubem1an, 1994) students that were majoring in HM. To improve consistency among the respondents, students with similar majors within fields of HM were included in the study; hospitality management, hotel management, food and beverage management, events management tourism, and nutrition. Students that had a major outside of the hospitality field such as business or nursing were not included in the analysis. 48

PAGE 67

Response Rate To understand the types of participants and the characteristics of persons in this study I calculated frequency of various demographics and overall response rate Initially there were some participants that were not majors in a hospitality related field, so they were removed from the statistical analysis. Table 3.2 indicates the number of respondents per school and the response rate. The number of participants was N = 437 with an overall response rate of students majoring in a hospitality field of 51.6% which exceeded the suggested 36% or above for statistical research (Baruch, 1999). Furthermore, there was similar group size with TC having an N = 238 and CC with an N=l99. Priori estimates of power of 76 in each group were exceeded indicating that the sample size was high enough to gain significance from the data. Table 3.2 Participation and Response Rates School Total Total TC cc Total Participants HM 238 199 437 Majors 499 348 847 Response Rate 47.7 57.2 51.6 Demographic Chara c teristics To further understand the participants in this study and how their group characteristics might have affected the college experience domains I calculated 49

PAGE 68

several demographic reports for the participants in the study. For some of the questions such as age, gender, race or grades, participants chose not to answer. I included only respondents that answered questions, so the number of participants per school varied by category. Table 3 3 describes the demographics of the participants by school. The two schools were similar in all demographic characteristics with the exception of age where TC had a slightly higher average age (N = 24.5) compared to CC (N = 21.6). Table 3.3 Survev Participant Demographic Characteristics Schoo N Male Female Age Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior GPA I TC 238 51 187 24.5 13 46 100 71 3.34 cc 199 77 122 21.6 23 38 41 97 3.30 Total 437 128 209 26.4 36 84 141 168 3.32 Ethnographic Characteristics Table 3.4 indicates that the ethnicity of participants at both schools was similar. CC had a slightly higher overall percentage of non-white students (25.9%) compared to TC (17.8%). Declared Maior Characteristics The types of majors included in this study were chosen because of their relevance in the hospitality industry and an attempt to have similar majors between programs. If a respondent indicated that they were a major outside of hospitality, hotel food and beverage, events, tourism sports, or nutrition they were excluded 50

PAGE 69

Table 3.4 Survey Participant Ethnograp_hic Characteristic Frequency School N Native Asian Black White Hispanic Other NonAmerican White Percent TC 236 2 9 3 179 17 11 17.8 cc 193 15 11 143 12 11 25.9 Total 429 3 24 14 322 29 22 21.4 from the analysis. Students that had a minor in one of these majors were included in the results because they had to take the same courses as full-time students that majored in the same degree field. Table 3.5 verifies that the two schools were similar in the number of student respondents and reports the type of majors and the number of respondents at each school. The two programs were similar in all majors with the exception of hospitality management which was sometimes used by students on the survey to explain their major. These respondents were required to have a concentration in one of the other major areas, so the difference between programs was not considered to have significantly influenced group difference in the college experience domains. Student Inter v iew Selection The selection of participants to interview followed a non-random criterion sampling (Miles & Huberman 1994; Nealy, 1992; Onwuegbusie & Leech, 2007) to reflect varied students at each school with multiple perspectives of the college 51

PAGE 70

Table 3.5 Survey Participant Major / Minor Characteristic School Hospitality Hotel Food and Events, Nutrition Total Beverage Tourism, and Sports Dietetics TC 45 63 30 60 34 232 cc 6 69 52 54 17 198 Total 51 129 82 114 41 430 experiences as reported on the preliminary survey. At the end of the paper survey (Appendix B) student's registered their name and contact information to volunteer for an interview. The selection of students was based upon an attempt to gain a variety of students with different concentrations of study within HM. The students provided basic demographic information on the registration form to include; age, gender, race, level in school commuting status, participation in social activities, and work experience. This information was used to choose students representing various demographic types from each school. The respondents were contacted directly by me and an appointment made for an interview Characteristics of'Student Interviews The total numbers ofparticipants are reported in Table 3.6. The total participants were N= 15, with similar group size between TC (N = 7) and CC (N = 8). 52

PAGE 71

Table 3.6 IntervieH Participant Field<> of Study School Participants Hotel Food and Events/Tourism Health Beverage Professions TC 7 2 3 1 1 cc 8 2 3 2 l Total 15 4 6 3 2 Other selection criteria included gaining perspective of students that participated in various activities in the college experience. Table 3. 7 indicates the types of descriptive statistics that students participated in such as living on or offcampus and working or participating in clubs while going to school. Table 3.7 Interview Participant s Other Descriptive Statisti cs School N Live on Live Non Athlete FRAT Student Work or Full-ttmc TC cc 7 8 Total 15 Campus offWhite Club Volunteer 0 2 2 ca m us 7 6 13 2 0 0 0 0 Participant Confidentiality 4 5 9 7 8 15 7 8 15 To protect students from identification the survey did not include personal identification information. If students wished to volunteer for face-to-face interview they listed their contact at the end of the survey which indicated their intent to be identified. The survey was conducted at the beginning of a class period and the instructor was asked to wait outside of the classroom until the survey was completed so that no identification of those completing or not completing surveys 53

PAGE 72

would occur. There were three researchers that administered the survey. They passed the survey to all students. Students were then asked to tum their surveys face down when complete. Those opting not to participant similarly placed their surveys face down. Thus the administrator collected all surveys without knowledge of who had actually completed it. Prior to the survey a script was read (Appendix C) that explained to the participants that their responses were confidential and that only the researcher will compile the results. Further announcements asked students to not complete the survey if they have completed it in another class. No personal identification information was connected to their responses During the face-to-face interviews the location was a private room in the campus library or an administrative building. The location was chosen for the convenience of students and allowed for privacy. The rooms were not viewable by other persons. At the beginning of the interview students were read a script (Appendix D) that reminded them of the confidentiality of their responses. The results of student responses on the interview were reported without using student names or identifying information. Instrumentation This study used the survey instrument provided in Appendix B The survey was based upon the competencies presented by Christou (2002) The survey asked students to rate their level of preparedness in each competency on a Likert-type scale from a low level(!) to a high level (5). Since the level of s elf-reported gains 54

PAGE 73

in practical competency may have occurred from varied domains in the college experience, the survey further asked respondents to rate their level of contribution from the three domains identified previously, classroom pedagogy, campus activities, and off-campus work and social activities. The survey presented by Christou (2002) was intended for outside sources to measure an entry level hospitality employee competency. Some wording was changed to reflect the language of a student self-perceived competency. The first essential competency was changed from "manages guest problems" to "ability to manage guest problems." This change was made so the question read clearly. Another change to the survey was the use of the word "hospitality" instead of "hotel" when asking respondents to rate their competency in their ability to identify operational problems in the hospitality industry. If the word hotel was used students that majored in events or food and beverage or nutrition that did not take as many hotel courses may not have perceived the question in a uniform way However, the word hospitality encompassed all similar majors within both HM programs. To gain descriptions ofthe types of activities that students were engaged in the survey asked questions such as participation in fraternities, athletics, and off campus work experience. These activities represented a list of possible activities in the college experience domains. Further analysis of the student interviews drew out more detailed experiences that may not have appeared on the survey questions. 55

PAGE 74

Survey Variables The survey includes independent dependent and extraneous variables identified in Appendix E (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2008; Lomax, 2001). The independent variables were composed of active and attribute variables The active independent variables, such as fraternity or athletic participation that were not manipulated by the analysis, but represent causal relationships to outcome variables such as level of competency. Additional independent variables include attribute variables such as gender and major that did not change. These descriptors were used to determine characteristics of group differences. The dependent variables were the ordinal outcomes of the independent variables. The dependent variables formed two major groups; level of competency and level of contribution from class campus and off-campus activities The extraneous variables were nominal in nature such as type of work experience or student club were used for descriptive statistics only. The combination of the independent, dependent, and extraneous variables were used to respond to difference research questions related to how the two programs differed in terms of student perceptions of competency and the level of contribution from classroom pedagogy, campus activities and off-campus experiences. C o ndu c tin g the Interview During the inter v iew each respondent was read a script identified in App e ndix 0 that described the procedure of the interview and r e minded them that 56

PAGE 75

participation was voluntary and confidential. There were two researchers, one for CC and one for TC. Different researchers were used so that a person unfamiliar to the student conducted the interview The goal of the interview was to gather detailed examples of student engagement and how their activities contributed to their level of competency (Seidman 2006). During the interview the researcher showed the participant a list of the types of activities that may have occurred in the classroom outside of class or on campus (see Table 1.2). The researcher asked the students to review the list of activities and discuss the types of activities that they participated in class, at school or off campus. The researchers used the list of I 1 competencies to inquire as to what aspect of the college experience contributed most to their level of competency. The interview was purposefully limited to the most significant contributing items to control the scope of the interview and increase accuracy. The respondents had the opportunity to describe other activities that might not be listed in Table 1.2 As the student responded to questions the researchers probed further and ask them to thoroughly explain their responses. The interviews were recorded electronically and transcribed verbatim in MS Word 2007 The data was transferred to qualitative analysis software NVIVO 8 for content analysis (Richards & Richards 1998) Data S ec urit y The research protocol allowed for the full transcriptions and content analysis of the student responses is made available to the researchers human 57

PAGE 76

subjects committee and approved persons for a period of three years. The data may be requested for review by contacting the author via email to wraym@mscd.edu. Student Interview Identities To protect the identity of students while allowing a means of identification in the study, codes were created for each student. For the CC students the eight respondents were labeled A-H. The seven TC students were labeled l-7. Since all students at CC were letters and all students at TC were numbers the reader could identify the school type by reading the student code. Therefore student responses were referenced in the analysis and remain available for review upon request. Analysis To address the first research question related to how a four-year public and private college differed on the 11 essential HM competencies I analyzed the survey results utilizing SPSS statistical analysis software (Levine, 1991 ). To identify difference between schools I conducted a multivariate analysis of variance, MANOV A. The analysis included reports of frequency, variance, validity, and assumptions discussed in the following sections Frequency Reports The analysis of frequencies explored the means, standard deviation, and number of respondents for student perceptions of their level of competency on the 11 essential HM competencies. The results reported in Chapter 4 determined how students perceived their level of competency on each question and how programs 58

PAGE 77

differed. The results were descriptive in nature and were not generalized to other populations. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of HM Competency Between Programs To demonstrate the complex nature of how schools differed in the level of contribution from class, campus, and off-campus activities to student reported competency MANOV A was conducted. MANOV A was used because there were multiple factors that represented group difference. The assumptions required of MANOV A included an understanding of independent observations. It was assumed that each student's self-reported gains in competency and contribution from various aspects of the college experience were independent of other student scores. To conduct MANOV A I had to verify that the variances for each dependent variable were approximately equal in each program. Care was taken to ensure that group size was no more than 1.5 times different from the smallest to the largest group. Since the smallest program CC had 193 participants compared to 232 at TC the assumption of equal size was not violated. Validity of HM Compet e ncy Scale Before conducting MANOVA it was important to check for internal consistency reliability of each of the ll variables that formed a scale. The instrumentation of this study relied heavily upon the 11 HM competencies as presented by Christou (2002). A reliable measure assumed that participation in engaging activities was a construct that explained student competency in HM. 59

PAGE 78

Therefore the variables must have been related systematically in a linear manner Scale reliability for internal consistency required multiple measures (Krathwohl, 1993 ). To assist in reliability of the scale three measures of reliability were calculated; Cronbach's coefficient alpha Spearman-Brown Coefficient, and Guttman Split-Half Coefficient to indicate the consistency of the multiple item scale (Cronbach, 1951; Litwin 2002; Raykov, 1998). Such checks utilized a standard of. 70 or higher. A very high measure above 90 meant that the items were repetitious or that there are more items in the scale than necessary for an internally reliable measure of the concept. The reliability measures reported in Table 3.8 for the 11 item scale fell between 70 and 90 for all three indices which indicated that the items formed a scale that had reasonable internal consistency reliability (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002). Table 3.8 Crohnbach s Alph a for If-Ite m Scale Scale Cronbach' s a SpearmanGuttman N of Items Brown Split-Half Coefficient Coefficient Class Activities .80 .83 .83 1 l Campus Activities .84 .82 .82 ll Off-campus .87 .81 80 l l Activities I I Item Scale .87 .84 .83 II 60

PAGE 79

Validi(v of HM-student Engagement Construct To provide a measure of validity ofthe underlying construct that student engagement among HM-students was composed of three domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus environments I conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EF A) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The results indicated how these variables hung together in logical groups (Leech eta!. (2008). In the review of student engagement literature and the problem statement it was postulated that students were engaged in three unique domains, classroom pedagogy, campus activities, and off-campus experiences. The factor analysis was necessary to verify that the three college experience domains were grouped together. A benefit of factor analysis was if some items did not statistically hang together they may have been removed in later analysis or combined with other factors to improve the construct. To improve clarity of PCA I removed all values less than .40 which may have resulted in some variables being removed from the scale (Leech, eta!. 2008). To test the assumptions of PCA I conducted the Bartlett's test of sphericity and set an alpha significance factor of .05. The results indicated a value of .898 which was above the recommended value of. 70. Furthermore the significance factor was < .001 which was below the recommended .05 which indicated that the correlation matrix was significantly different from the identity matrix (Leech, et al. 2008). Further assumptions included; independent sampling, normality, linear 61

PAGE 80

relationships between pairs of variables, and the variables being correlated at a moderate le vel which were checked and met. With the assumptions met I conducted principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation to assess the underlying structure of 33 items in the HM competency survey. Three factors were requested based on the construct that students viewed class, campus and off-campus as uniquely different learning environments in the college experience. The Scree plot in Figure 3.1 below indicated visually that the majority of the variance was explained by the three factor s of the college experience. The dramatic vertical down slope of the graph followed by the more parallel line indicated that the variance was likely explained best by three factors. Scree Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1l 1 2 13 14 \S 16 11 1 8 l9 20 21 22 23 2.41 2 5 26 2 7 2 8 29 30 3 1 32 33 Cort1)0nent NuniJer Figure 3 1 S cree Plot of Three Fa c tor s in the C o ll ege Ex p e ri e nce 62

PAGE 81

The table in Appendix F indicates the factor loadings communalities and percentage of variance explained by the three factors in the college experience. After rotation the first factor in the college experience campus activities accounted for 23.3% of the variance, whereas the second factor off-campus activities accounted for 14.8% and the third accounted for 7.5%. A total of 45 6% of the variance was explained by the three factors. The Scree plot in Figure 3.1 demonstrated that the plot quickly flattens out after the third factor which indicated that less of the variance would be explained by computing for four factors. All 33 factors aligned in the three college experience domains without any variation or need to combine or eliminate factors to improve clarity. Question Two, Relationships o.lStud e nt Engagement to Comp e t e ncy in HM To answer the second question related to the relationship of student engagement to perceived competency in HM in the two programs I calculated frequencies and regression analysis. The survey instrument measured the level of competency in 11 essential areas. The frequency reports identified the level of self reported competency and how programs differed. This report did not look at statistical significance, but was beneficial in determining which competencies were higher than others and how schools differed. The regression analysis identified relationships that predicted student competency based upon engagement in class, campus or off-campus activities. 63

PAGE 82

Correlation Analysis Although reference to other population was not an aspect of this dissertation correlations between each competency and contribution from class work, campus and off-campus activities measured the level of contribution that occurred from each engagement activity. This measure determined the ability to predict the dependent variable (competency) by several independent variables (contribution from class, campus off-campus) Each of the competencies was considered separately to avoid variables that were unrelated to the construct possibly predicting outcomes. For example ifthere were multiple dependent variables and I tried to compute all 11 competencies at once relationships may have occurred by chance. When I viewed each competency separately and determined how classroom, campus or off-campus domains related to performance on the competency, results indicated a direct relationship. Furthermore by conducting hierarchal multiple linear regressions I was able to add a control for school type consistent with the student engagement literature identified in Chapter 2. By doing so, I determined whether or not schools differed in a statistically significant way and how participation in the college experience predicted HM competency. For any variables that yielded significant results I reported beta weights to identify which variables significantly contributed to the prediction at these schools. 64

PAGE 83

Assumptions of Multiple Regression To avoid error I tested for multi-collinearity. Multi-collinearity would have occurred if there were high intercorrelations among some of the predictor variables. If two or more of the predictors contained similar information, error could have occurred. The assumptions of linearity, normally distributed errors, and uncorrelated errors were checked and met (Leech, et al. 2008). Several checks were required to ensure that multi-collinearity did not occur which is commonly required of regression analysis (Lomax 2001 ). I reported the means, standard deviations and number of respondents for results of the statistical analysis. Since the inferential statistics used in this study required a normal distribution I checked for skewness of data and would have transformed variables if necessary. Although the data were slightly skewed, SPSS was generally robust against errors of normality among groups and the results may still have value (Leech, et al. 2008). Additional assumptions included independence of observations and linearity. With independence of observations I assumed that there was not a relationship between the response of one student or another on the survey. Since there were no recommendations for students to refer friends or associates to take the survey and the survey was offered to all participants in classes I did not violate the assumption of independence of observations. 65

PAGE 84

In addition to independence of observations inferential statistics further assumed that variables were related in a linear way. If they were related they would have fallen in a clustered line on a scatter plot. I printed and analyzed scatter plots and the data did not appear curved. Therefore I did not transform the variables to reduce error. Qu e stions 3-5 Student Engagem e nt Between Schools To address final three research question regarding how HM-students described activities in the college experience domains ; classroom campus, and off campus that contributed to their development of competency in their profession, three methods of data were collected. The multi-case analysis identified in Table 3 1 included a triangulation of three views of student engagement and student perceptions of competency in the schools. The three views of student engagement included college catalog descriptions of the HM program campus activities and off-campus support programs student responses on the HM competency survey and student interviews Program Descriptions For the three domains of student engagement in the college experience; classroom campus, and off-campus activities I analyzed the college catalog and prepared a summarized description of each domain. r sent the summaries to the administrator in each HM department The result of the analysis was a descriptive theme statement that described the program and the types of experience available to 66

PAGE 85

students in the classroom and on and off-campus. To improve content validity of the theme statements the administrators were invited to check the statement for clarity and content and had the opportunity to add or delete items so that their programs and activities were described The administrator s comments were used to adjust the program descriptions to improve accuracy Course Requirements To assist in identifying differences between schools in the classroom domain I analyzed the required course content for the major / concentrations in the two HM programs. I looked at similar majors at each school to include hotel, food and beverage, events, and nutrition. The purpose of conducting a course requirement analysis was to identify differences between programs in the types and frequencies of courses in each major. If one program had stressed more courses in one major than another program such availability of courses may have contributed to their competency in that field. Survey Frequency Analysis To further address the last three research question regarding student perceptions of engagement activities amongst HM programs I analyzed the frequency of survey responses presented in Appendix B. The survey results were entered into SPSS software. As problems arose it became necessary to make decisions as to how the data was categorized. l took notes and made decisions on data which were reported as data rules in Appendix G The results of the analysis 67

PAGE 86

provided descriptive statistics of some of the student engagement activities (Keppel, 1991; Lomax 2001 ). The results provided further incite to similarities and differences between programs and an overall measure of all respondents participation in educational purposeful activities such as student clubs fraternities and off-campus work experience Stud e nt Interview Analysis To gain a deeper perspective on the types of activities that engaged students in college experience, the interviews provided the final triangulation of data that described what types of activities contributed to their level of competency The survey discussed previously did not address the multitude of e ngagement acti v ities occurred in and out of the classroom such as engaging with peers and faculty on v aried tasks such as debates problems and simulations student clubs and work experience. By asking the students the most significant contributing factors of their college experience I gained a perspective of student perceptions of the educationally purposeful activities that occurred and to what degree they occurred in each domain. The goal was to draw out experiences that contributed to their competency and provided a student voice to explain connections between the classroom domain pedagogy and their learning. During the interview if a student answered a question as yes or no or did not provide sufficient detail the researchers probed further to gain detailed information on how activities in each of the three college experience domains contributed to 68

PAGE 87

their competency The interviews were recorded and transcribed into MS Word and imported to NviV08 for content analysis. Student lnt e rvi ev.' Fr e quenc y in the Classroom Domain To further describe the classroom domain from student re s ponses in the interview I organized categories in the NVIVO software to look for the type of pedagogy described in Table 1-2. As I read the interview transcripts I analyzed the type of activity the student was referring to such as reading books interacting with faculty or work experience. I placed the data into the categories listed in Table 1-2. As with the quantitative data as a need arose for creating a rule on data analysis I recorded the rule which appears in Appendix G. The purpose of coding the interview data into categories was to verify that the types of college experience engagement activities that occurred at these schools. The results also indicated the frequency of student references to pedagogies in the classroom domain. Once the categories for each domain in the college experience were analyzed I reviewed the results of the categories with my research chairperson and a peer research committee to verify that the categorizations of s tudent responses were placed in logical categories. Any coding that was not placed into an appropriate category was removed or placed in a different category Through multiple interviews themes and trends developed in each category I summari z ed the themes that developed in each category such as books debates and student clubs and created a description of each category. In the descriptions I 69

PAGE 88

used the student voice verbatim when possible. If the student voice did not read clearly or made reference to a previous discussion I placed words in italics to add clarity. For the first two domains (questions 3-4) classroom and campus, the descriptions detailed how and why students valued their experience. In some cases there was a difference between schools due to the emphasis of one pedagogy or campus activity over another. In the off-campus (question 5) domain, however, the responses from students were not manipulated or controlled by the school to a large degree. Furthermore, the category work experience had lengthy responses from students which created a need for further analysis. I used the format of the question, which asked students to identify what domain contributed most to each of the 11 HM competencies. For the work experience category, I discussed the relevance of student work or volunteer experience to each of the 11 HM competencies. Interpreting Inferential Statistics For the inferential statistical analysis in this study I used alpha values of .05 to determine whether or not the results were statistically significant (Lomax 200 l ). I considered results statistically significant if the p value was less than .06. With the value ofless than .06, setting alpha at .05 I reduced the probability of a Type I error whereas the null hypothesis would have been rejected and could have possibly been true (Leech, et al. 2008). 70

PAGE 89

Effect size Statistical significance does imply that the results were practically significant. Large sample sizes occurred in this study which exceeded 50% of the student body In studies with larger sample size statistically significant results with may have resulted with weak effect size. Therefore, the results may not have been practically important. To address problems of practical significance I reported the strength of the outcomes in additional to statistical significance. The size of this effect was reported as recommended by Cohen (1988) as smalL medium large or very large effect. In the literature review in Chapter 2 not all researchers reported effect size, but in almost all cases small effect was the largest seen in HM studies and similar student engagement literature Therefore I reported all values even if they were less than the recommended levels for a small effect. Limitations ofthe Analysis This study had both an advantage and disadvantage to sample size Although there was a large overall sample size of 437 and equal group size that exceeded priori power estimates the data was limited in the number of programs compared. With two programs the sample was not large enough to be considered replicable to larger populations such as all HM programs. The results were limited to describing the programs in this study and were note replicated to larger groups. The measures in this study served as a descriptive look at the student experience in two HM programs. With the high response rate at these schools the relationship 71

PAGE 90

data served as good predictors of HM competency, but not for other populations. An attempt was made to gain research approval at a third school. The third school offered graduate programs and would have offered another Carnegie type and a different perspective to the study. The school declined to participate which limited the study to undergraduate degree institutions. The qualitative interviews of students were limited to the amount of students that volunteered and their availability. Although I exceeded my goal of at least 4 students from each program looking at 15 students represented less than 2% of the student body which was not a high enough response to provide statistical data for all types of students with varied college experiences. Therefore statistical analysis of qualitative interview results was not generalized to other populations. Furthermore, students were asked only the most significant contribution to their competency I did not ask for verification of all of the pedagogy in the classroom or activity on or off-campus had occurred. If I had gone to the extent of verifying all types of pedagogy and activities in the college experience the results would have gone beyond the scope of the study. Rather the purpose of the interviews was limited to providing a student voice to the types of activities in the college experience. Therefore to enhance validity a triangulation of data provided multiple views of the same phenomenon No single source in the triangulation was considered replicable to other populations. 72

PAGE 91

The conceptual framework of this dissertation relied upon I1 competencies in HM being a measure of student competency. There were likely to have been multiple measures of student competency far beyond the II measures. Therefore school comparisons or judgment on program quality should not be construed from this data The scope of the study was purposefully limited to I1 factors as they were the common competencies reported in HM literature The goal was to extract how two schools differed on the level of competency and how engagement activities in the college experience contributed to student development. The success of graduates from either program was not limited to these II competencies alone and likely extended far beyond the scope of this dissertation. The student success on the I I HM competencies were based on self reported perceptions of competency. That same competency may have been better measured by an external source that was not subject to student self reflection. Therefore student comments and responses were meant as a descriptive measure only and not considered measurements of school effectiveness or graduate preparation Furthermore I could have conducted regression analysis where multiple factors were controlled for such as participation in student clubs or work experience. Although interesting the predictability of HM competency based upon individual pedagogy or activity participation wa s beyond the scope of the study and the research questions. 73

PAGE 92

Another weakness in the research design was the lack of member checks on student responses on the survey. The design relied upon triangulation of three views of the college experience college catalog HM survey, and student interviews The validity of the data was enhanced by the three views but limited by using verbatim responses of students. Another technique would have been to create summary statements from each student, seek inter-rater reliability with a second researcher and then check with students to verify that the summaries represented their viewpoint. The study design of this dissertation used the former technique rather than the latter, wherein student responses were kept in their own voice and not altered by a researcher. This approach took a narrative viewpoint to tell a story in the students own voice with minimal alteration to their responses 74

PAGE 93

CHAPTER4 HM COMPETENCY AND THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE Overview of Statistical Methods This dissertation relied upon the 11 HM Competencies identified in Table 2-3 as a list of desirable competencies for hospitality managers (Christou, 2002). The results in this chapter addressed the first and second research questions related to how student's self-reported competency differed at a four-year public and private college and to what degree participation in the college experience predicted HM competency. To address the first research question related to differences between programs in the level of competency and contribution from the three domains in the college experience; class, campus, and off-campus activities, I conducted MANOV A. Further analysis included descriptive frequencies, internal consistency of the 11 item scale and validity of the construct of three domains in the college expenence. Regression analysis was conducted to address the second question related to the relationship of student engagement in the college experience to perceived competency in HM at two schools. The mean scores and standard deviations of self-reported competency in HM identified how programs differed. However, hierarchal linear regression was necessary to determine the predictability of HM competency by student participation in the three domains in the college experience. 75

PAGE 94

Each of the competencies was considered separately to avoid variables that were unrelated to the construct predicting outcomes. For any variables that yielded significant results beta weights were analyzed to identify which variables significantly contributed to the prediction and the percentage of variance from mean scores that was explained by variables in the model. For those variables that were not significant the results were recorded in table format as an appendix. Frequency Reports The analysis of frequencies explored the means standard deviation and number of respondents for student perceptions of their level of competency on the 11 HM competenci es. Figure 4.1 displays the mean HM competency scores graphically. The results indicated similar scores in both programs which required further analysis to determine significant differences between programs. 5 4 5 4 3.5 3 2 5 2 1.5 1 cc 0.5 TC 0 Figure 4.1 Student Reported Competency Chart by Program 76

PAGE 95

Further analysis calculated the means and standard deviations of student reported contribution from the three domains in the college experience. The results of the mean scores from each domain are pictured graphically for all domains at TC combined in Figure 4.2 and for CC in Figure 4.3. Additional analysis was required to indicate significant difference between programs on the level of contribution from the three domains in the college experience By visually analyzing the graphs the self reported HM competency in Figure 4 1 appeared similar in both schools. The level of contribution from the three domains in Figure 4.2 and 4 3 appeared that in both programs the classroom and off-campus domains dominated student reported contribution. Additional analysis was needed to identify significant differences between programs. 3 .0 0 1 .00 1 .50 1.00 0 .50 0 .00 Class Campu s Figure 4.2 TC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains 77

PAGE 96

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Figure 4.3 CC Student Reported Contribution from Three Domains MANOV A of HM Competency Between Programs Class Campus 1111 Off-C.1mpus To demonstrate the complex nature ofhow programs differed in the level of contribution from class, campus and off-campus domains to student reported competency, MANOVA was conducted. MANOVA was used because there were multiple factors that represented group difference. Before conducting MANOV A, checks for internal consistency of the 11 item HM competency scale and validation of the college experience construct was conducted. Assumptions of MANO VA The first assumption required of MAN OVA includes an understanding of independent observations which was checked and met (Leech, et aL 2008). Secondly, group size was no more than 1.5 times different from the smallest to the 78

PAGE 97

largest group. Since the smallest school, CC had 193 participants, compared to 232 at TC, the assumption of equal size was not violated. Validity of H}.f Competency Scale The instrumentation of this study relied heavily upon the 11 HM competencies as presented by Christou (2002). A reliable measure assumed that participation in engaging activities was a construct that explained student competency in HM. Three measures of internal consistency were used in this dissertation. Table 3-8 reported the scores for internal consistency of the 11 item scale. All three indices fell between 70 and .90, which indicated good internal consistency reliability, (Krathwohl, 1993; Cronbach, 1951; Litwin, 2002; Raykov, 1998). Therefore the variables must have been related systematically in a linear manner with good internal consistency. Validity ofHM-student Engagement Construct To provide a measure of validity of the underlying construct that student engagement among HM-students was composed of three domains; classroom, campus, and off-campus domains, I conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis, EF A and Principal Components Analysis, PCA. To test the assumptions of PCA I conducted the Bartlett's test of sphericity and set an alpha significance factor of .05. The results indicated a value of .898 which was above the recommended value of. 70. Furthermore, the significance factor was < .00 I which was below the recommended .05 which indicated that the correlation matrix was significantly 79

PAGE 98

different from the identity matrix (Leech et al., 2008). Further assumptions included; independent sampling, normality linear relationships between pairs of variables, and the variables being correlated at a moderate level which were checked and met. With the assumptions met I conducted principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation to assess the underlying structure of 33 items in the HM competency survey Three factors were requested based on the construct that students viewed class, campus, and off-campus domains as uniquely different learning environments in the college experience. Appendix F indicates the factor loadings, communalities and percentage of variance explained by the three factors in the college experience. After rotation the first factor in the college experience, campus activities accounted for 23.3 % of the variance, the second factor accounted for 14.8%, and the third factor accounted for 7.5%. A total of 45.6% of the variance was explained by the three factors. All 33 factors aligned in the three college experience domains without any variation or need to combine or eliminate factors to improve clarity. .MANOVA ofHM Competency A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were differences between programs on a linear combination of II ho s pitality competencies The assumptions of independence of observations and homogeneity of variance/covariance were checked and met. When the 11 variables were 80

PAGE 99

combined in a scale no significant difference was found Wilks' A= .960 F(ll,416) == 1.593, p = .10, I)= .20 where Wilks A is the appropriate type of statistical formula applied to the measure. F represents the critical value of the statistic taking into account the degrees of freedom of the sample size. The p value represents the probability that the calculated F statistic is significant, which is indicated by values less than .005 (Leech, et al. 2008). The I) represents the effect size measure, which according to Cohen ( 1998) are measured as small for values bet\veen .I 0 and .23, medium for values between .24 and 36, large for values from .3 7 to .44, and very large for values at .45 or above. The table in Appendix G indicates the means and standard deviations for the ll HM competencies. A follow-up ANOVA (Appendix H) revealed that of the 11 competencies the student reported competency of possessing leadership qualities significantly contributed to program difference F( 1 ,426) = 4 .242, p == 040, I) = .I 0 which was a small effect. CC students reported that their competency in leadership qualities (M = 4.02) was significantly higher than TC (M = 3.86). MANOVA ofProgram Difference in the Classroom Domain A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were differences between programs on a linear combination of student reported contribution from class activities for the II hospitality competencies (Table 4.1 ). The assumptions of independence of observations and homogeneity of 81

PAGE 100

variance/covariance were checked and met. A significant difference was found, Wilks' A= .942 F(ll,411) = 2.3l,p = .009, lJ = .24, which was a medium effect. Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations olStudent Sell Reported HM Competency cc TC HM Competency M so N M SD N Manage guest probl e ms 2 .2 4 .63 193 2.11 .64 230 Develop customer relations 2.21 .64 193 2 14 .64 230 Professional appearance 2.33 .70 193 2.17 .70 230 Communicate written and oral 2 59 .61 193 2.57 .56 230 Relationships with employees 2 05 .73 193 2.17 74 230 Identify operational problems 2.22 .70 193 2.14 .64 230 Maintain ethical standards 2.47 .64 193 2.41 .63 230 Possess leadership qualities 2.40 .61 193 2 33 .65 230 Motivate employees for performance 2.15 .70 193 2.07 .74 230 Follow legal responsibility 2.61 .56 193 2.46 .66 230 Follow hygiene and safety regulations 2.57 .60 193 2.42 .70 230 Table 4.2 identifies the between program effects of the classroom domain for competency in HM. The table indicates those competencies that significantly contributed to the difference between programs. The table includes the df or degrees of freedom of the sample size, the F, p, and lJ values (discussed previously) 82

PAGE 101

and the observed power, where values closer to 1.0 indicate the likelihood that statistical significance will occur, despite small effect size (Gliner & Morgan 2000 ; Lomax, 2001 ). Table 4.2 Between Program E.ffects of HM Competencyfiom the Classroom Domain Observed HM Competency df F p I) Power Manage guest problems* 4.199 .041 .010 .534 Develop customer relations 1.183 .277 .003 .192 Professional appearance* 4.705 .031 .0 ll .581 Communicate written and oral .016 .8 99 .000 .052 Relationships with employees 3.109 .079 .007 .421 Identify operational problems 1.654 .199 .004 .250 Maintain ethical standards l .739 .391 .002 .138 Possess leadership qualities .966 .326 .002 .165 Motivate employees for performance 1.179 278 003 192 Follow legal responsibility* 5.585 .019 .013 .655 Follow and safety regulations* 4.249 .040 .010 538 *significantly contributed to program difference Examination of the coefficients (Table 4 3) for the linear combinations distinguishing the programs in the classroom domain indicated that for the competency related to developing professional appearance and poise contributed most to program difference. Career college had higher mean scores M = 2.33 than Tech college M = 2.17, which indicated greater confidence in CC students ability to present professional appearance and poise from their class work p=.03l, 1)=.01). In this equation value is a statistical weight applied to the variable devised to maximize the difference between groups (Leech, et al. 2008). Table 4.3 83

PAGE 102

displays the standard error in the equation, t score for the difference between groups, and the level of significance, where less than .05 is considered a significant difference (Leech, et al. 2008). The next most contribution in program difference came from classroom pedagogy that developed competency in legal aspects of hospitality operations. CC had a higher score (M = 2.57) compared to TC (M = 2.42), (p = .142, p = .024, IJ = .11 ). Classroom pedagogy contributed to student competency in understanding hygiene and safety practices which was higher at CC (M = 2.57) compared to TC (lvl = 2.42), (p = .131, p = .040, IJ = .1 0). The final aspect of the classroom domain that contributed to program difference was related to handling guest problems with sensitivity and care. Again CC a higher mean score (M = 2.24) compared to TC (M= 2.11), (p = .126, p = .041, IJ = .10). Despite the small effect size (IJ) of most of the variables that contributed to group difference, the observed statistical power had values close to 1.0 when computed with an alpha of .05, which indicated that significant differences may have been found despite small effect sizes (Leech, et al. 2008). /tvfANOVA of Program in the Campus Domain A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were differences between programs on a linear combination of student reported competency gained from campus activities (Appendix H). Results indicated that 84

PAGE 103

Table 4.3 Parameter Estimates of Between Program Differences fi'om the Classroom Domain Std. Observed HM Com12etenc1: Error t Sig. !J Power Manage guest problems .126 .062 2.049 .041 .032 .534 Develop customer relations 068 .063 1.088 277 .006 .192 Professional appearance .148 .068 2.169 .031 .011 .581 Communicate written and oral 007 .057 .127 899 .001 .052 Relationships with employees -.126 .072 -l. 763 .079 .008 .421 Identify operational problems .084 065 1.286 .199 .060 .250 Maintain ethical standards .053 .062 .859 .391 .045 .138 Possess leadership qualities .061 .062 983 326 .045 .165 Motivate employees for performance .076 .070 1.086 .278 .060 .192 Follow legal responsibility .142 .060 2.363 .019 .011 .655 Follow hygiene and safety regulations .131 .063 2.061 .040 .100 .538 there was no significant difference between programs, Wilks' i\= .973 F(ll,410) = 1.045, p = .405 1J=.16. Follow-up ANOVAs presented in Appendix H indicated that for the campus domain developing professional appearance and poise CC (M = 2 06) had significantly higher mean scores than TC (M= 1.89), F(l,42l) = 5.689,p = .018, I) = .II. Furthermore, when it came to developing leadership competency from campus activities, CC was once again higher (M = 2.01) than TC (M = 1.90) F(1,421) = 3.714, p = .055 1J = .10. 85

PAGE 104

MANOVA of Program D([ferenc e from the Offc ampus Domain A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess if there were differences between programs on a linear combination of contribution from off campus experiences for the 11 hospitality competencies (Appendix H). No significant difference was found between the programs Wilks' A= 1621.95, F(l1,413), p = .247, lJ ==.50. Follow-up ANOV As (Appendix H) indicated that off-campus activities had two competencies that were significantly different between programs. When students learned about how to handle guest problems with sensitivity and care CC students reported significantly better results, M = 2.66 than TC, M = 2 .54, F(l ,423) = 4.040, p = 045, lJ = .1 0. Furthermore, student ability to identify operational problems was also higher at CC, M= 2 39 than TC, M = 2.27 F(l, 243) = 3.619 p =. 058, I)= .09. Relationship of Student Engagement to HM Competency To investigate how well student engagement in the classroom campus and off-campus domains predicted competency for the 11 HM competencies when controlling for program type a hierarchal linear regression was computed Table 4.4 identifies which of the HM competencies was predicted by the college experiences and whether or not programs differed. The notes below Table 4.4 list the F score, degrees of freedom significance, and adju s ted R2 for each significant prediction For each significant result the adjusted R 2 indicates the percentage of variance 86

PAGE 105

explained by the prediction or percentage of the variance explained by the prediction The complete results of the analysis including beta weights are reported in table format in Appendix L Predi c ting Compet e nc y by Engagement in the Colleg e Exp e rien ce Hierarchal linear regression was computed to investigate how well engagement in the college experience predicted HM Competency. When the three domains of engagement were entered in the first model they significantly predicted competency, F(3 428) = 18.677 p < .001, adjusted == .11, indicating that 11% of the variance was explained by engagement in the college experience which was a very small effect. When program type was added in the second model the prediction was not significantly improved F( 4,427) = 14.155, p == .426, adjusted R2 == 11. Of the three variables that explained the college experience beta weights presented in Appendix I suggested that off-campus activities significantly contributed to the prediction. Summary Before conducting statistical analysis of HM competency and predicting competency b y engagement in the college experience it was necessary to analyze the internal consistency of the 11 HM competencies forming a reliable scale All three indices fell between 70 and 90 which indicated good internal consistency reliability, (Krathwohl, 1993; Cronback, 1951; Litwin 2002; Raykov, 1998). Therefore, the variables must have been related systematically in a linear manner 87

PAGE 106

Table 4.4 Summary of College Experiences and Program Tvpe Pr edic tion ofllM Competencv College School Classroom Campus OffExperience DitTer e nce Domain Domain campus HM Competency Prediction Domain Manage guest problems1 Yes No No No Yes Develop customer rclations2 Yes No Ye s Yes Yes Profe ssio nal appearance3 Yes No Ye s No Yes Communicate written and oral4 Yes No Yes No Yes Relationships with cmployees5 Yes No Ye s No Yes IdentifY operational problems Yes No Yes No Yes Maintain ethical standards7 Yes No Yes No Yes Pos sess leadership qualitiesx Yes No Ye s Yes Yes Motivate employees for Yes No Yes Yes Yes performanee9 Follow legal res pon si bility10 Yes ;-.Jo Yes Yes Yes Follow hygiene and safety Yes No Ye s No Yes I II regu at10ns 1 F(3, 428)=18.677 p<.OOI, adjusted 2 F(3 425)=28.482, p <.OO I adjusted R2= .16 3 F(3, 424 )=29.3 70, p <.OO 1, adjusted R2=.17 4 F(3, 423)=45.705 p <.OOI, adjusted R2=.24 5 F(3 426)=33.104.p<.001, adjusted R1= .19 6 F(3, 420)=72.039 p<.OO 1, adjusted R2=.34 7 F(3 425)=35.463,p< .OOI, adjusted R2=.20 F(3 424)=53.797,p< .001, adju ste d R2=.28 9 F(3, 425 )=59.451, p < .OOI, adjusted R2=.29 1 F(3 426)=74.657 p <.OO I adjusted R2=.34 1 1 F(3, 425)=40 .117 p <.OOl, adjusted R1= .22 with good internal consistency. Furthermore, required assumptions of regression analysis and MANOVA were checked and met. 88

PAGE 107

To verify that the college experience was based on the construct that students viewed class, campus and off-campus domains as uniquely different learning environments in the college experience, Principal Component Analysis was conducted. The results indicated that a total of 45.6% of the variance was explained by the three domains of the college experience. All33 factors aligned in the three college experience domains, without any variation or need to combine or eliminate factors to improve clarity. The construct would not have been significantly improved by additional domains or other factors. HM Competen cy The frequency reports for competency in HM presented in Table 4.1 indicated that CC had higher mean scores for seven of the 1 1 competencies indicating that students at CC reported higher competency in HM. However when the 11 competencies were combined in a scale there was no significant difference between programs Wilks' J\ = .960 F(11 416) = 1.593 p = .1 0 I)= .20. Of the 11 competencies, only one, possessing leadership qualities significantly contributed to program difference F(l ,426) = 4.242 p = .040 I) = .10 Although programs did not significantly differ in the level of student reported competency, MANOV A was conducted to determine if programs differed in the level of contribution from the domains in the college experience. Of the three domains in the college experience only the classroom was significantly different 89

PAGE 108

Wilks' A= .942 F(l1,411) = 2.31,p = .009, IJ = .24, which was a medium effect. The campus domain was not significantly different between programs, Wilks' A= .973, F(11,410) = 1.045,p = .405, IJ = .16. Nor was the off-campus domain, Wilks' A= 1621.95, F(ll,413),p = .247, IJ =.50. For the classroom domain, which was significantly different between programs, analysis of the coefficients indicated that the most contributing competency to program difference was professional appearance and poise. CC had higher mean scores (M = 2.33) than TC (M = 2.17) = .148,p = .031, I)= .01). The next most contribution in program difference came from classroom pedagogy that developed competency in legal aspects of hospitality operations, where CC had a higher score (M = 2.57) compared to TC (M = 2.42), W = .142 p = .024, IJ = .11 ). For the competency related to understanding hygiene and safety practices CC was higher (M = 2.57) compared to TC (A-!= 2.42), = .131, p = .040, IJ = .I 0). Finally, for the competency related to handling guest problems with sensitivity and care. Again, CC had a higher mean score (M = 2.24) compared to TC (M= 2.11), = .126, p = .041, IJ = .10). Predicting HM Competenc_v Table 4.4 identified which of the II HM competencies was predicted by the college experiences and whether or not schools differed. For each of the 11 HM competencies participation in the college experience domains significantly contributed toward the prediction. This indicated that when students were engaged 90

PAGE 109

in the college experience they would be more likely to have had higher self reported HM competency When program type was added to the equation none of the 11 competencies were better predicted by where the student went to school indicating that where the student went to school did not improve the prediction. When the domains in the college experience were analyzed participation in the classroom significantly contributed to I 0 of the 11 competencies, with the exception of managing guest problems with sensitivity and care. The off-campus domains significantly contributed to the prediction of all of the 11 HM competencies. In contrast participation in the campus domain contributed to the prediction of four competencies. developing customer relations, possessing leadership qualities, motivating employees for performance, and following legal responsibilities. 91

PAGE 110

CHAPTER 5 THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE DOMAfNS Overview of Research Methodology To address the third fourth and fifth research questions regarding how HM-student's perceptions of the college experience domains differed between a four-year public and four-year private college a triangulation of three views of college experience domains was conducted The three views of the domains included administrator descriptions of the HM program, frequency of student responses on the HM competency survey, and student interviews. The classroom domain included a fourth view, course requirements. Furthermore, the frequency of student responses on interview questions were reported to identify the intensity and frequency of responses related to pedagogy, activities, and experiences in the college experience domains. The results of the program descriptions reported in this chapter were sent to the department chairperson at each institution for their review. They reviewed the clarity and content of the data and ensured the privacy of institution and student identification from the results. Participants were selected to represent varied demographics and participation in the majors within HM The students were emailed and scheduled for an interview The interview took place on campus in a private room that was 92

PAGE 111

not visible by other faculty or students. Two researchers conducted the interviews and were disconnected from the administration and faculty at each school. The respondents were shown the pedagogy in the classroom domain identified in Table 1.2 in Chapter 1. With the classroom, campus and off-campus domains in mind, students were asked to discuss which domain contributed most to their competency in HM The interview script appears in Appendix D. The goal was to draw out experiences that contributed most to their competency and provide a student voice to explain connections between programs in the college experience domains and their learning. The researchers probed further to gain detailed information on how activities in each of the three hospitality experience domains contributed to their competency The interviews were recorded and transcribed into MS Word and imported to NviV08 for content analysis. Student Intervi e w Characteristics For the interview participants, the total number of participants was reported in Table 3.6 in Chapter 3 with anN= 15 with similar group size between TC (N = 7) and CC (N = 8). The participant's demographics were reported in Table 3-6 in Chapter 3. Students were selected that represented a varied classes, gender, and age Furthermore, Table 3.6 identified that participants includ e d representation from each of the majors in HM at each school with varied representation from living on and off-campus, male, female, and active in varied experiences on and off-campus. The use of student voice in the college experience domains required 93

PAGE 112

the protection of student identity. Participants from CC were labeled A-H while TC students were named 1-7. When reading the responses from students, the program may be identified by either letter (CC) or number (TC) to provide for an understanding of program difference. Classroom Domain To identify differences between schools in the classroom domain I analyzed the official school catalog at each school to gain a perspective of what types of courses were composed of in each program and how the classroom was described by administrators. The results indicated the types of courses and organization of the classroom environment. The course and classroom descriptions were important because they represented the types of opportunities available to students in the classroom domain that may have contributed to their professional competency. Technical College TC was described in the college catalog as an urban four-year public college with more than I 0.000 full-time students offering primarily under-graduate degrees in more than 50 majors including; arts, science, business, and related professions such as HM. TC had a strong focus on teaching excellence where faculty members primarily taught and spent less time on professional development than at a traditional research institution. The faculty members were also required to be engaged in campus and community leadership and advising. The classroom size was approximately 28 students per class. There were eight full-time faculty 94

PAGE 113

members including the department chairperson overseeing majors in hotel events, tourism and food and beverage management. With 499 students composing the majors within the department the faculty to student ratio was 62.4. Additionally, nutrition/dietetics students took their food management courses in the department but were not included in this calculation because they were advised by the nutrition department. A tour of the classrooms indicated that they were equipped with media projection and internet access. Most of the classrooms had moveable chairs with side tables or meeting style tables with portable chairs and tiled floors. The culinary laboratory was a multi-purpose classroom designed to serve multiple courses. There was no beverage laboratory, working restaurant or hotel; however the department coordinated experiential activities with local hotels and restaurants when possible. Approximately 15% of the department course requirements were available online. The department program description in the catalog described an emphasis of learning through practical hands-on experience. Such experiences were coordinated by faculty through off-campus tours, work experience, guest speakers and conducting events on campus. The activities were designed to have students work with their peers to simulate hospitality operations as closely mirrored to industry standards as possible 95

PAGE 114

The college funding came from the state education budget and student tuition. The college charter was designed for modified open enrollment where students that were underprepared to enter college would have a means to take preparatory courses while attending TC. To be admitted students took an entrance exam to gauge their ability to achieve in school. The assessment placed students in preparatory courses for general education (math and English) or admitted them directly to college level courses. No post assessment was used for general education or hospitality competency. Faculty members were required to primarily teach covering four courses per semester, twice annually They maintained five office hours per week for academic and career advising and were required to document an additional five hours engaging with students weekly All faculty advised students with no particular assignments. Students chose their own course schedules but could consult with campus wide or faculty advisors in their major. The predominance of coursework in the first two years was general education requirements, but at least one course in their major during the first year. Most courses required a pre-requisite of an introductory course where academic and career advising occurred. Car e er Coll e ge CC was described in the college catalog and student handbook as a private four-year college providing bachelor's and master s degrees in approximately 20 96

PAGE 115

career oriented programs. The approximately 2000 students majored in programs such as business education, public service, hospitality management and health professions. The college focused on providing a quality learning environment that was oriented on the student and provided career related experiences for success on the job following graduation. Very few courses were available online due to a preference for hands-on courses and experiential learning in the classroom. The faculty members were assigned primarily in teaching roles with advising assignments on their courses and career development, whereas additional career and registration advising was conducted by student services and experiential learning and career services advisor s Several faculty in each major were assigned students to advise and given release time from teaching so that they might engage with students. They were required to meet with students several times per year and mentor their progress in their first year. Faculty taught two cour s es per trimester, and maintained two office hours per week. Faculty were also charged with creating a challenging academic environment that was experiential in nature and supported the needs of a diverse student body to create a career competent student that was engaged in their profession and community. The administrators limited the emphasis on research or administrative responsibility so that faculty could have focused on the classroom and advise students in their career progress. Seven full-time faculty members including a department chairperson were in the hospitality department, comprised of majors in hotel food and beverage, 97

PAGE 116

recreation, and events management. Additional full-time faculty taught business and culinary arts courses. The department also provided courses for health profession students that took a portion of their courses in the hospitality management department. With 348 students in the above majors the full-time faculty to student ratio was 30: l for traditional courses and 20: I in laboratory courses. Students were accepted to CC by an application and entrance exam that placed them either directly in college level courses or preparatory courses. The college emphasized student outcomes and included a post assessment for English and additional post-course assessments in some courses. In their first semester students were required to participate in a three day orientation period that included academic, campus, and career advising. Class assignments in the first year were assigned by the college with an upside down curriculum where students took courses in their major along with general education. Upperclassmen were self scheduled and predominately went to school two days per week so that they could work while going to school. The college was privately funded primarily through student tuition, fees, and private funds. The facilities included high technology classrooms with media capability for projection, internet and television. Most of the classrooms had sound dampening carpet, walls and furniture, and tiered structures where the students had a good view front of the classroom. The kitchen facilities had specialty laboratories 98

PAGE 117

for different kitchen skills such as a baking, meats, general production, nutrition and conference management. Students learned proper purchasing, receiving storage, and requisition processes by working in a centralized purchasing laboratory. Another experiential lab contained beverage mixology equipment and tasting materials A working restaurant and conference facility were part of the experiential laboratories that students used. The facility descriptions in the catalog did not include a hotel for students; however, off-campus simulations were conducted with local hotels. Course Requirement s The required course content for each program major / concentrations were analyzed to identify the courses that were offered to develop HM competency. The majors included hotel, food and beverage, events and nutrition/dietetics Table 5.l indicates the required credits excluding electives in each major by program. The analysis included the percentage of required courses so comparisons would be equal regardless of semester type. CC was on a quarter-system with block scheduling. The purpose of the schedule was described in the school catalog as having benefited the student in their ability to focus on one or two courses at a time over an entire quarter. TC was on a semester schedule with additional courses offered in a Summer and Winter break term where the credit hours are the same. but the schedule was compressed into fewer weeks. 99

PAGE 118

Results in Table 5.1 indicate that the overall requirements for the different majors were similar for hotel and nutrition majors For food and beverage majors CC required a higher percentage of course requirements (26 .2%) compared to TC (26 .2%). For Events, Tourism and Recreation students CC had a higher percentage of course requirements (29.4 % ) compared to TC (17 5%). CC also had a higher percentage of courses required for HM-students that were general business courses (20 6%) compared to TC (7 5 %). In regards to General Education courses, TC had a higher percentage of required courses (30.8%) compared to CC (21.4%) Table 5 1 Core Course Requirements b y Concentration and Supporting Courses Hours TC Percent Hours CC Percent of of Required Required Course Name Hotel Management 56 46.7 88 46.6 Food and Beverage 21 17.5 49.5 26.2 Events, Tourism, Recreation 21 17.5 55.5 29.4 Nutrition/Dietetics 73 60 8 118 62.4 General Business 9 7 5 39 20.6 General Education 37 30 8 40 5 21.4 Required of all courses 120 189 The results in table 5.1 indicate that for s pecific HM courses CC had a higher percentage of career specific coursework required for all majors in HM. However, TC had a higher emphasi s on General Education courses. With a higher emphasis on classes directly related to their profession, CC may have provided a higher amount of classroom activities that contributed to student HM competency 100

PAGE 119

A complete analysis of program requirements appears in Appendix J where each major is reported. Another factor related to career preparation was the requirement of an internship at CC. TC in contrast included an internship as an elective with three credits, whereas CC had a 13. 5 credit hour requirement (based upon trimesters). TC required a minimum amount of work experience in hospitality that was documented by the student, but not monitored by the school. The internship process at CC however was supported by student services (discussed later in this chapter) where career advisors coordinated internship opportunities. The higher level of career required experience may have contributed to student competency in HM, particularly in off-campus experiences discussed previously in Chapter 4. Hotel Management Courses Table H l in Appendix H identified more specifically the differences between institutions Although the coursework requirements in Table 5.1 previously in this chapter identified similar percentages of requirements for hotel management students, further analysis indicated that there were specific course requirement differences. The hotel management course requirement table in Appendix J indicated that both programs had similar courses; however CC did not require two courses directly related to hotel operations housekeeping and security and safety. Furthermore CC did not require some support courses that related to hospitality management in general, including, principles of hospitality, promotions 101

PAGE 120

travel and ecotourism, convention management, sustainable tourism, and entrepreneurial creativity With a more hospitality generalized curriculum it appeared that in the classroom domain, hotel students at TC may have broader exposure to hospitality management skills and less of an emphasis on operational skill. The only course not required at TC that CC required was a course in revenue management which was another emphasis on specific operational skill rather than a broad focus in hospitality management. Food and Beverage Courses As identified earlier in Table 5.1, CC had a higher emphasis on food and beverage operations than TC. A complete analysis in Appendix 1 indicated that the differences were primarily in food production courses with six credits required at TC compared to 30 credits at CC. Furthermore, CC required an operational management course in food and beverage that TC did not offer. For internship requirements, the results were the same as described above where CC required a 13.5 credit internship; whereas TC had the internship listed as an elective and required a minimum work experience approved by a faculty advisor. With the higher level of operational management coursework and food production courses CC students were exposed to more operational skill oriented courses than TC which may have been reflected in their professional competency in the classroom domain. 102

PAGE 121

Events, Recreation, Tourism Courses The difference between course requirements between schools became apparent by examining events/recreation course requirements table in Appendix J. CC required more hospitality operations courses in events management than TC, with 13.5 credits of courses required that CC does not. Furthermore, CC included courses in guest service management and food and beverage that TC did not require. The event major at TC also required technical media and additional negotiations coursework The combination of the additional requirements indicated that in the classroom domain CC required more courses directly related to competency in events management. Nutrition/Dietetics Courses At first look the number of total course credits for nutrition / dietetic majors was similar. Further examination of the course requirements for nutrition/dietetics in Appendix J indicated that of the requirements CC required dramatically more courses ( 60 credits) in food and beverage operations compared to TC ( 10 credits). CC had more courses required in food microbiology and science and additional courses in food management and finance. TC required much more courses directly related to the field of dietetics and counseling and less requirements for food and beverage. TC had courses in health care management, research, and counseling that CC did not offer. Furthermore, the nutrition courses were higher at TC (31 credits) compared to CC (17.5 credits). The results indicated that CC had a higher emphasis 103

PAGE 122

on food and beverage operations in the classroom whereas TC focused on nutrition and dietetics coursework. General Busin e ss Courses For hospitality majors both programs required some coursework in general business courses. The general business course requirement table in Appendix J identified the specific differences from the college catalogs. CC required a finance course that TC did not. CC also required a revenue management course which could have increased student exposure to higher amounts of financial and revenue management skills. Interestingly CC required economics and ethics whereas TC included those courses as options and were not required. The combination of the increased financial. economic, and ethical course requirements indicated that students at CC had greater exposure to general business courses in the classroom domain. Gen e ral Education Cours es The general education table in Appendix J indicates that TC had a higher emphasis on general education courses than CC. Even though the overall percentage of course requirements were higher for general education at TC they were lower for math and English CC required more courses in English and the college catalog described an emphasis on writing projects across the curriculum. Furthem1ore, CC required an additional college level math course. The reason for the overall higher amount of courses in general education at TC wa s due to 104

PAGE 123

requirements in arts, literature, and multicultural courses that CC did not require. The combination of the English and math courses at CC, along with post assessments for writing discussed earlier indicated that students were exposed to higher amounts of math and English courses at CC and may have contributed to writing competency. TC appeared to focus more on broad coursework in diverse environments, multiculturalism and arts and letters. The combination of these courses may have prepared students at TC better for critical thinking skills and working in diverse environments, but underprepared in English and math. Student Interview Frequency To describe the classroom domain from student responses in the interview I organized nodes in the NviVO software to look for the type of pedagogy described in Table 1.2. Table 5.2 lists the nodes, number of sources, and references per school. The purpose was to verify that the types of pedagogy listed in this table occurred in the two programs. The results indicated the frequency of student references to pedagogies in the classroom domain Each of these pedagogies listed in 5.2 is discussed individually in the following sections with the exception of pedagogy that had no responses ; capstone courses, independent study, research projects and senior research. Because the interview question asked students for the most memorable and contributing pedagogy, activity or experiences that contributed to their development in the college experience domains, some pedagogy in Table 5.2 had 105

PAGE 124

no responses. There was a possibility that capstone courses as an example may have contributed toward HM Competency, however to maintain a reasonable scope to the study the questions did not verify all the types of activities that occurred, rather the most influential. Table 5.2 Frequenc_v olClassroom Domain Interview Resp_ondents by_ School Classroom cc TC Sources cc TC References Domain Nodes Sources Sources Total References References Total Capstone Courses 0 0 0 0 0 0 Case Study 4 0 4 9 0 9 Assignments 7 I 8 13 2 15 Lectures 5 4 9 8 7 16 Presentations 4 2 6 3 7 10 Exams I 2 3 2 3 5 Debates 6 0 6 19 0 19 Demonstrations I 0 I I 0 I Experiential Labs 5 5 10 II II 22 Faculty 5 3 8 II 7 \8 Interactions Guest Speakers 0 3 3 0 3 3 Independent Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-campus Tours I 4 5 2 4 6 Online Courses 2 3 4 1 5 Peer Interactions 5 5 10 20 19 39 Reading 4 1 5 6 8 14 Research Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 Video 0 0 Total 51 31 82 110 71 181 Classroom Domain Student Descriptions Students at TC described the classroom domain as an environment that was different than the workplace and was tense at times, but an exciting place where you could learn about new things, particularly in law or common knowledge 106

PAGE 125

subjects. The teacher's effectiveness and timing of the classes was important as Student-7 described a professor as "a new professor and ... I don't think he's got all his ways that he wants to teach. A lot of it is just from the book and verbatim lecture Student-S described the classroom as a nervous atmosphere where "it just gives you that more, you know edgy kind of feeling." When probed further Student-S described that the classroom was different than one on one "where you feel like there's hundreds of glaring eyes." While the previous student felt nervous, student-2 said "I get so excited in my classes. I just, 1 can't wait to go to class." The atmosphere was particularly effective for this student in the law class, where one can develop "a better legal sense ... school has helped tremendously with that." Student-7 concurred and commented "I really did learn a lot." Student-4 was actively working while going to school, adding that "I'm able to take the strengths ... from class and go to my staff and teach them." At CC Student-F also described the atmosphere in the classroom as benefiting from small class sizes. For this student, it felt "like you're really getting that one on one attention. So I feel like you're absorbing more information than you would at say a larger university." For Student-A, the classroom ''just sort of reinforced what I already knew." Student-H tended to value experiences in the classroom that were closely related to the hospitality industry such as in the beverage courses where you learned "the responsibility of ... being a purveyor of 107

PAGE 126

alcohol." Students were provided opportunities to reflect on what they had previously known. Student H commented "I've hired people before and if I were to hire people today as I was, did back in the late 80's, I would probably be liable to be sued." If students brought to school a strong experience background the classroom domain was not as valued, as Student-A stated 'it's much more text book oriented than I had hoped." The student appeared to want to have expressed their own experiences more in the classroom but they sort of just want to teach what they want to teach and how they want to teach it." When probed further Student-A responded that "they say you know here's chapter 2 and this is what chapter 2 says, chapter 3 ... So it's sort of tough to get the big world perspective on things." Case Study For case study, no students from TC commented on this pedagogy. At CC in contrast students valued case study particularly in law, psychology and hospitality operations courses. Case studies provided Student-C opportunities for to "come up with scenarios and . come up with ideas of what we would do." Student-A explained "it gives you an ideal of you know what may have more the cause and effects of, of you know breaking the law or having an employee break the law." When it came to courses directly related to hospitality operations Student C referred to reading a case study book where situations were realistic and students experienced things "that can happen and that there's not just going to be like the perfect day." This student felt case study "keeps things real, it leaves no illusions 108

PAGE 127

that the hospitality industry is just going to be a l 00% perfect every day." Student C referred to specific benefits of case study pedagogy that allowed opportunities "to use critical thinking as well as being flexible" for different scenarios. Student-0 concurred and said "they go over the main things that could go wrong. And teach you like ways that you can do it through problem solving." The use of case study seemed to be prevalent in much of the coursework at CC where Student-G commented "we ve had a bunch of discussions just in different classes." Including classes such as front office management where "a lot of that was actually you know covered with how you can deal with customer problems." Student-G also described a customer service class that "was devoted to handling customer problems and difficulties that may arise." For Student-G the use of case studies seemed to be pervasive, as was described in class ''we've done a lot of case studies looking at different organi z ations and how they've responded to different events A ss ignm e nts For course assignments Student-4 commented assignments were prevalent including one course "where [write a paper for every week At CC however seven of the eight students interviewed commented on class assignments as a frequently used pedagogy in the classroom. Student-E commented "we have a lot of projects, a lot ofwriting intensive assignments throughout the courses." Student A agreed and said "they do many projects, including letters and portfolios to 109

PAGE 128

perfonnance to resumes." Some of the writing assignments were very comprehensive, including, writing reviews on restaurants as Student-G said "a lot of them can be up to 20 30 pages ofyou know marketing plans or something like that." The value of written assignments on resumes and portfolios was described by Student-A as giving you "a clear idea of what other people expect. Student-A continued and said the faculty members were highly involved in improving student writing skills and that they would "advise suggestions or corrections of you know what would enhance it better." Another student concurred and said that teachers were not only engaged with student progress, but they assigned work rooted in student interest in food, as Student-H described the teacher would hand it back to us and his comments were, you know maybe we would be superficial on what we were writing about the pork chop or whatever and he would say you know get into it and describe. You know, write what you feel. Such persistent assignments and feedback from professors was valued by Student-Has he stated that other students noticed a big change in my writing. Larger projects were sometimes completed in group where students valued the experience to work with others. Student-B valued group writing activities because a big topic or goal of the class was to be able to work in teams, l mean because you're going to get that in the real world anyways. 110

PAGE 129

Pres en tat ions Class presentations at TC were viewed by two students as valuable experiences that improved their communication skills and were centered on the student rather than lecture. In the communications course Student-5 said they catch little things and then the professor would like, you know they have the whole line of notes telling you what you did wrong and what she suggest you should do and stuff. Assignments that were given verbally were preferred as Student-6 stated "I love being in front of the class," but less so as Student-5 found that written assignments were "easier to do than stand in front of a whole classroom." However, when students were in front of the class the learning was centered on them. In one course Student-6 described a "group assignment where we were presenting the stories, the readings for the day versus the teacher doing it." At CC presentations in class were more pervasive with five of the eight participants commenting on the fear and stress of presentations being a valuable part of learning that supported varied competencies. The teachers were described as having given specific feedback and outlined student performance as Student-B said "do you get nervous? Do you speed things? Are you, you know, rushing the way you talk and speak in class?" For Student-C the feedback was helpful because it made me more aware of how I speak with other people especially in public speaking as well as, you know making sure that I speak clearly and that I try to speak clearly and it gave me confidence to talk to other people. 1 1 1

PAGE 130

The pervasiveness of such assignments was described by Student-B as "about six presentations in two months and for four classes." Some of the presentations were done in groups and enforced professional poise and dress. Student-B commented that "for every single one I or my group and other groups have all dressed professionally. It's almost just like, it's like a norm for a presentation." Student-E commented that for presentations in the communications class "it's a great way to help us understand how to present ourselves how to hold ourselves and how to answer questions, present on a specific topic in a proper way and in a proper setting Student-G commented further about professional dress being part of the grade "so if you're not dressed up you know if you come in looking like kind of a bum off street or whatever, you get actually counted down in your projects for that." Exams Comprehensive exams were a pedagogy used by both programs in specific courses where competency was viewed as critical to future career success. Student F commented about the requirement for a comprehensive writing competency exam and said "it was a big problem so our school my first year had writing assignments for every single class. Now there is a writing proficiency exam that you have to finish in order to get your degree.'' Comprehensive exams were given in courses requiring sanitation and safety certification for food and alcohol programs. Such courses and their exams directly contributed to student competency 112

PAGE 131

as described by Student-4 because "it's a good six weeks just spent on that. So I definitely feel confident with that." When exams involved writing in class for essay's Student-6 was confident working on a computer because "it's all a matter of being able to translate what's going into your head onto a computer screen ... so that doesn't bother me." But when Student-6 was doing essays by hand in class, with less time to prepare, sometimes the "were all short answer essays and as I was walking out of class l wasn't concerned about the content that I put in there but was he going to be able to read it?" Debate and Discussion When students were asked about their most valued experiences that built their HM competency, no students from TC referred to debates or discussions as an influential pedagogy. However, six students at CC commented on the value of gaining hospitality operational skill by discussing and debating concepts in class. For Student-E "having group discussions as well as class discussions really helps us understand sort of how to deal with those problems as they arise." Such discussions on hospitality operations were valued when the teacher had relevant industry experience as Student-0 explained "she just like tells us about problems that she's come across and other people that she's talked too other restaurants and how they solved their problems Student-E concurred and commented that "all of our staff and faculty have industry experience and they have dealt with a few things first hand." Student-E continued adding "we have a lot of faculty and staffhelp 113

PAGE 132

and real opportunities and scenarios that we can really get a hands-on." For such problem solving, discussions gives you multiple abilities to handle, depending on what situation was to arise" Student-A said. The discussions in class were reported as having been lively and engaging and valuable to student learning. Student-A explained that hearing feedback on their discussion and identifying weaknesses in other student arguments was helpful because "hearing what other people said ... and where those little snags were because you know something may be clear to one person but it doesn't really answer the question to the next person." The professors also had to closely monitor debates "because people start disagreeing on things and ... it sometimes gets a little out of control." Discussions appeared to be pervasive across the curriculum at CC. Student C recently took a Human Resource course and commented that they "just finished talking about discrimination laws and how you have to be careful in your hiring process and stuff that you should take for hiring." Discussion was less valued in a leadership course, where Student-C commented that we are talking about, you know how teamwork leadership works." The student viewed the discussion as "like the book definition of leadership" which may have been helpful, but according to this student "you don't really learn leadership until you're put in that position." Discussions were also prevalent in a business ethics class where Student-E described "we have a lot of discussions and presentations about ethical behavior." 114

PAGE 133

Professors engaged students and made discussions relevant because "our professor has a lot of experience with ethical backgrounds and students bringing current events to the classroom to discuss as well." Additional discussions and role playing occurred in the law course as Student-E described "role playing, just understanding okay if this is the situation, how do you respond to that and ... how do you go about solving that problem?" The combination of discussions, debates and role playing across the curriculum at CC had great value for Student-E who commented "for me personally it's more of the discussions than it is reading a text book because the text book obviously gives you the information but it is how you apply that in the real world that I think ultimately sets that." Demonstrations For classroom demonstration pedagogy only one student from CC commented on hands-on demonstrations in class. Student-F said "for instance sanitation you would look for you know people washing their hands and you know proper equipment." The student described the class as operational oriented and value was gained from demonstration. "Then after you know doing that in class, learning it from the class and then taking it to work, you notice different things and you can bring that to people's attention." Experiential Labs The second most referred to pedagogy in the classroom was experiential activities in classroom laboratories with 22 total references. Students from both 115

PAGE 134

programs commented on the value of hands-on practical experience particularly when the experience closely mirrored hospitality industry standards in realistic settings. At CC industry standards in san i tation and safety were provided by professional culinary labs. Student-C reported they are always making sure your knives are clean, making sure your hands are washed making sure you re wearing gloves, if you cut yourself and that you have a band aid on and that you're washing your food that you're cooking it to the right temperature. These labs were important to students to their career development. Student-S commented that "you never know if your next employer is right around the comer. Student-S also reported that the skills they learned were relevant and that they teamed what to do in situations. You know if someone gets a cut, mopping the wet floor, anything like that." The experiential labs were simulating actual restaurant operations as Student-F described it was like mock restaurants that you would create yourself." In these labs students learned how individual courses fit into the larger picture of running a restaurant, as one student reported until you actually go through and see the different steps for every department, you really don t understand fully how much goes into it." Students at TC also reported a strong emphasis in experi e ntial labs for sanitation standards Student-2 described that they record sanitation standards on a clipboard and "at the end of the day what needs to be cleaned and we need to check for like if the dish detergent needs to be replaced and that type of thing." Such 116

PAGE 135

highly organized Jabs seemed to simulate realistic learning environments for these students as Student-2 stated that it is "definitely where I've learned some of that list stuff. You know she taught me that it's very important to keep track of those things." Such hands-on skill practice was described as contributing to knowledge of professional kitchens, as Student-3 stated "we learned a lot about the equipment side of it, so I think most of my equipment knowledge comes from there." During the experiential labs and mock restaurants at CC the faculty members were described by students as highly engaged in their learning progress. Student-F commented on the high level ofknowledge in the faculty "he knows how everything should be done because he's done it for so many years." During class "he would walk around the class and you know he would just kind of observe. If you were doing something wrong he would come over and let you know." These labs were also long and comprehensive as Student-G described "'it"s actually like a two hour class and a four hour lab.'' In the mock restaurant "'we all put on like a restaurant for a day." The more realistic the environment, the more it appeared the students learned and valued the experience even when stressful and high pressure, as Student-H described "in the culinary part they really stress to the freshman and sophomores. They'll line you up and want it pressed and shined and everything." Although such inspections and stressful situations may have appeared high stakes and almost behaviorist in pedagogical approach, Student-H valued the experience I I 7

PAGE 136

and explained further that "you know shaving and all the other things no piercings Some instructors are real stringent on that which I think is great." Student 2 at TC commented on the value of s trict standards and described an instructor as "very strict and I think that's a good thing. At TC they did have a student dining room that can simulate realistic situations. Instructors created campus wide or departmental events with customers from the local and college community. These events provided opportunities for students to engage their local community in experiential ways as Student-1 described a promotions class where "we're out constantly soliciting private donations for the silent auction .. I think you're being taught . without being lectured upon With the lack of having a dining room to work in, one creative instructor had students serve for a charity event as student-! described it as having "some volunteer work which I just did this last Saturday night for an event." Through private events, catering, and hands-on experiential labs, students at TC identified leadership and working in groups as an outcome other than kitchen or restaurant skills. Student-2 described group organization, and said one group is the chef group and they're the ones that walk around with a clipboard the temperatures and the different things that need to be cleaned and fixed and finished So that's definitely a leadership opportunity in that class The same student continued and described how group work improved motivational skills explaining that "when my lab partner in cooking classes kind of having a 1 18

PAGE 137

down day I would, I guess in a way you could consider it motivational. I'm like you know we can do this." Student-4 commented in a similar way and described group work as challenging and that ''we've still got to get it done. And you've got to motivate your partner and you have to pick up the pace so you're not still in the kitchen for six hours F acuity interactions Interacting with faculty was reported by students as a valuable experience that contributed toward their professional growth. Not only did faculty interaction help students in their courses it served as a means to mentor students in multiple ways beyond the classroom. However the mere presence of faculty was not enough to contribute toward growth, caring feedback was paramount to these students. At TC Student-S described that just working with faculty can have them on edge, as it was explained you have to be careful of what you're doing and everything because everything that you do in front of your professor is graded or it s, you know, he's looking at you, you know. He's judging you and it's all based on your grade no matter what. If the faculty member diffused the tension the same student would relax in the classroom as it was further explained "unless he tells you like this is not going to be on your grade or anything Then you 'll feel a little much more at ease.'' Student-2 added clarity to the tense nature of working with faculty and described how a nurturing tone and demeanor enhanced their learning, whereas "most of the 119

PAGE 138

teachers here are extremely kind and caring and they're very hospitable. So I think just looking at them as role models helped me as well." If the professor showed a great interest in the student's progress then the interaction was more meaningful, as the same student explained ''teachers tend to kind of take responsibility on your grade so get what you want out of it. The faculty members at CC were also described as being engaged in student progress particularly when they adjusted to student needs as Student-A explained "so like coming here you know the professors are willing, they'll stay after, and they ll meet with you. You know they're very flexible and they're willing to make you know accommodations to help you so that you can succeed.'' The same student explained further that access to professors was important to their learning in that being able to get the help that you need when you need it is a real, real benefit." Student-C commented that the feedback from faculty was meaningful when it constructive and honest, saying that "constructive criticism, just being honest with me about, you know you don t realize that you're doing this but we do and pointing things out that I'm doing so that I m mindful of them." The same student continued and added that the burden of the communication link with teachers was a student responsibility, explaining that "I try to maintain open communication when I need help in a class, when I'm struggling I talk to the teachers, and that can help in the workplace 120

PAGE 139

At CC one student explained how faculty could demonstrate a mentorship role that went beyond feedback on assignments and behavior it extended into lifelong learning particularly in courses that required intense feedback like writing. Student-H explained the relationship with the teacher by saying that he was extremely critical on our writing .. and it was those comments that really helped me to look at how my writing The depth of the connection with the teacher was described by this student as having helped me to find within myself a passion that was always there and it was for to help people." Guest Speakers For guest speaker pedagogy, none of the student's at CC commented on the value of these activities in the classroom. However, at TC Student-1 commented that "I've been introduced through the classes, through the professors to the activities to many people in the industry that I hadn't previously been privy to." For this student, exposure to local industry leaders showed potential to help them in their career so the experience was valued, as this student further explained it has opened up those connections as well and just to continue those types of relationships." Student-4 agreed and found value in a food identification course where guest speakers were from local purveyors, and explained Meeting with those guys, meeting with the Seattle Fish or Bucket Beef. You know actually taking that into the work experience now I mean those are my suppliers so 1 know those guys personally 121

PAGE 140

The demeanor and professionalism of the guest speakers seemed to be important to students as well and served to motivate them, as Student-6 explained, the guest speaker "shows up to class dressing for the part and through that was able to get more of her education (across), people took her more seriously and she was more engaged." Off-campus Tours Students in both programs commented on the value of going off-campus as part of a structured class event. By going off-campus, students gained perspective on the importance of professional appearance and poise. Student-5 explained "they expect you to dress professional ... because you'll be talking to you know teachers and staff and guests so you need to look and act professionally." Student-E concurred and stated that "it's really the first hand experience I think that helps us understand how to carry ourselves and how to present ourselves in the industry." The same student added that, "we're supposed to be dressed and how we're supposed to handle ourselves and present ourselves when we're discussing and meeting and interacting with industry professionals." Going off-campus also contributed to student HM competency by providing current industry problems relevant to classroom theory. Student-4 explained that "we do a tour of a hotel and restaurant once a week and we meet with the owner or general manager and just talk about problems that they have and how they overcome them, inventory issues or deliveries or whatever it may be." This student 122

PAGE 141

described further that the topics on their off-campus tours can be related back to classroom theory and their own work, explaining that it "definitely helped because l can take that knowledge and what they're struggling with and put it through my work life you know." Student7 concurred with the relevancy of the topics discussed on the tours and described how the ability to ask direct questions to staff members contributed to their understanding of hospitality operations. This student explained that "during the tours of hotels and different departments and you know the chief engineer, or in the executive house you can talk or ask them, give you kind of an insight on certain things." Online Courses At TC a student commented that the online environment was used to tum in assignments and supplement course learning. Student-6 explained the "instructor will tell us, I prefer you just submit anything by email for both its green factors and ease of reading." The same student added that technology sources seemed to have been more pervasive, in that "we continue to have more hand held devices and ways to submit things electronically." When it came to the effectiveness of learning an online course two CC students referred to the sanitation course that was taught online Student-0 commented that "it teaches you a Jot. How it teaches you I don t know, it just kind of sticks." The student explained further that "I think because it like, it goes over everything about hygiene and when you're done like you have to pass a test and 123

PAGE 142

then you get certified in it, so." Student-G student disagreed in the teaching effectiveness of online pedagogy and commented that "you know I don't think it can teach you that as well" For the sanitation course, this student stated "I "I definitely have learned a lot from my online course but I've learned a whole lot more from the, you know on, from the hands on stuffbecause you're doing it every day." For Student-G it appeared that online was appropriate if the content material was reinforced in classroom activities, explaining that "I learn more from doing things, so this class has definitely helped reinforce the online class." Peer Interactions Peer interactions were the classroom pedagogy with the most frequent responses and references from students. The discussions regarding peers interacting centered upon group work. Students at both schools discussed in detail both the necessity and frustration of group work. At TC Student-S commented that group work was a frequently used pedagogy saying that ''everything is about teamwork ... that's why in classes you always are in a team You know they put you in a team in order to do that." Student-! described the amount of the group projects by saying "I'm in a lot of classes this semester, and I have a lot of group work. Three out of my five courses have, they're all, you in a team.'' Student-Gat CC described that they also had "a lot of group projects." Several other students at CC commented on current courses they were taking with group projects, and Student-F stated that, "I do a lot of group projects." 124

PAGE 143

The peer interactions that occurred in groups were viewed by students in both programs as an important aspect of learning to work in a group and fostered leadership and motivation competency. Student-S at TC said that working in a group shows you who, who in that one certain group has that leadership potential and who doesn't." This student continued and explained that "it s like if I don't motivate them who's going to motivate them? So in classroom when you're in a group, that motivation part comes out." Student-F regarded group work as a means to develop motivational skills commenting that "classrooms give you ; you know different examples of how you can motivate people You can you know, give them incentives like bonuses if you meet his goal and stuff like that." Group work for one Student-C at CC contributed to an understanding of the importance of communication skills, even when working with peers that were not liked, as was explained I did a poster competition with three other people and just communicating a nd trying to, you know, even when I don't like them and l think they're they have no business being here I still try to work with them and be like, hey, you need to do this. When differences arose this s tudent said that l might ha v e my differences l keep those to myself and just make sure that the work that we re doing is getting done." Student-S de s cribed how to avoid conflict by not having face to face confrontations, explaining tha t I can email them or I could, you know write them a letter or a note about a project. This student added that written communication 125

PAGE 144

"might come off a litter nicer that way." Student-G student summed up the importance of group communication as follows: Having the group component with the group projects really forces you to communicate. Because you know if you don't communicate then you're going to be left out to dry when it comes time to put together the whole project. And 1 guess that's just been a big part of it, just realizing from some of the group experiences that I've had, where the communication hasn't been so great, comparing those to those where communication has been a whole lot better, it makes you realize you know how important that interpersonal communication can be. As peers communicated about their projects, much of the discussions appeared to be centered on keeping peers on task and meeting deadlines. Some students viewed this as a desirable skill to learn and a good managerial trait. Student-G described the task oriented dynamic as being caused by "when you're in a group project you have to get certain things done and certain people you know really learn how to collaborate with other people in order to get things done." When asked how students stayed on task, the response was that "you set deadlines in the groups of when you need things put together by when you need to have certain people put them together." Group work was valued, but also a very frustrating aspect of the classroom domain to keep students on task so that you get a good grade. For Student-6 at TC working in groups was about "trying to get through the class work, and we 're typically trying to get a good grade." For this student the grade helped keep everyone on task because we all have the same goal." Staying on task was 126

PAGE 145

important to a TC student because an instructor "slapped us with a group project that's 40% of your grade. It's huge, you know Fail this and you can t get better than aD if you have 100%." When other members in the student's group did not view the project as seriously, Student-6 was left wondering "Does anybody care" Does anybody object?" Does anyone want to get together and plan?'' The student remained frustrated because, 'that was a week ago and I have not had one person even send anything back to acknowledge it." This student understood the "need to work out of the classroom because it's just like homework." But explained further that when working in a group, "it's harder when you have to work, when your homework is dependent on other students because now it s not just finding time in my schedule, it's me finding time with our collective schedules Some of the frustration for organizing groups and the dynamics of group interactions were managed by instructors when they monitored group performance. Although Student S said that personal study groups were preferred because "you get to choose your study group unlike classrooms usually the professor chooses your, who you want to study with This student said that "you're more comfortable with them and that you're not scared to come out more. It gets easier when you re in a study group than in a classroom. Student-6 further described the importance of working with people they were familiar with and felt that performance was better if the group members were familiar with one another. The student described initial assignments where the instructor '"puts us in groups after 127

PAGE 146

just a couple of classes and the noise level before class changes dynamically." When asked to explain further, the student responded that "once you have a group of people that you talk to on a regular basis, it becomes more comfortable." Student-6 outlined how group performance was reviewed by the instructor. When a negative experience occurred, the student "made a comment to the teacher." The level of frustration appeared to have diminished if the teacher allowed for students to comment about other group members. This student continued and explained that I said in "the letter that I kind of appointed myself group leader by the fact that no one else was there to oppose it." Lectures The method of delivery and length of class lectures appeared to frustrate students at time, but it could be overcome by qualified and skilled teachers. Student-4 said ''it drives me nuts.'' When asked to explain why lecture was not good, the student explained that "a lot of it is just from the book and verbatim lecture for three hours." Student-S said that lecture was good when "the teachers gave you examples and then they put you in like little situations." Student-B said that if the instructor delivered the material well, the boring nature of lectures could be overcome, explaining that "the way they speak really influences my thought process of how something should be." Student-F commented on the importance of a background in the field that was taught. In the law class, "my professor was an attorney for like his entire life ... he just like knew all the material.'' The delivery 128

PAGE 147

of instruction also mattered for this student, explaining that the law teacher "had a passion for what he was talking about and in tum I had a passion to listen to what he had to say." Reading When students described the use of reading as classroom pedagogy the responses tended to mirror student preferences for learning style and described the types of courses that reading was an effective methodology. At TC one student described that textbooks were good for supplementing class discussions and experiential labs. Student-S said "books, you know explain it but I don't think explains to the point where you know, you actually know what you need to do. I think it's something that you actually need to experience." For this student textbooks were not as helpful for subjects related to professional appearance, wherein "they need to put more pictures in to explain how, you know you should dress and stuff." For courses that were more abstract such as leadership or motivation, Student-S viewed the lesson more effective if the teacher had supplemented the reading with discussion, as was stated the textbooks talk a lot about problems and the way to approach the problems. Then lectures, like the teachers will give you examples and they, then that's where like they put you in like little situations .. and you have to kind of sol v e a situation and stuff. Although this student detailed that textbook-wise you don t really you know learn about motivation, it was admitted that for classes that covered regulations like 129

PAGE 148

sanitation or law, reading was beneficial. Student-S detailed that "in books they talk about you know like regulations and stuff." At CC in contrast two students said that their learning style was to read about course content and include supplementary reading to improve their competency. Student-A described their learning style as "one of those people that sort of absorb a lot from reading and watching." S tudent-C agreed and described how they read outside of the assigned reading, saying "I'll read pretty much anything because I just love to read and I like to gain information through books. Even if the book was only suggested by the faculty member Student-C read the material, and explained "I think taking the time to see what books they wanted to read as well helped." Similar to TC, a CC student stated that books related to regulatory subjects were helpful as Student-0 described "Book reading was easiest for me to understand the legal responsibilities." Student-F responded similarly as a TC student where textbooks were not a good simulation for real life saying r mean you can only learn so much from a textbook." The same student continued and said, "but if you could actually see it in real life and you're actually in the environment and you see it going on, it's I don't know it connects more than you would getting it from a book." !30

PAGE 149

Classroom Domain Summary The analysis of the classroom domain included a triangulation of the catalog descriptions of the programs and frequency of course requirements to student interview responses. The results confirm that the classroom domain was a dynamic environment with multiple pedagogics employed to enhance student competency. The statistical analysis reported in Chapter 4 indicated that the classroom domain was one of the three domains in the college experience and that of the three domains; only the classroom was significantly different by program in the amount of contribution toward competency in HM. Further qualitative analysis was required to determine some of the reasons why schools differed. The first data included descriptions in the college catalog of the two programs. Table 5.3 reports the summary of the catalog descriptions and frequency of coursework requirements at CC. For CC students there were specific benefits expressed regarding the quality of facilities and the relevant work experience of instructors. By providing realistic courses in experiential labs such as the mock restaurant, students valued the classroom environment. Furthermore, instructors were viewed as helpful, engaged in the student progress and possessing relevant industry experience. Pedagogy in the classroom often featured case studies that provided students with problem solving skills. Group assignments were frequently used that allowed for student engagement with peers and faculty. External engagement with the local industry was achieved through guest speakers and field 131

PAGE 150

trips. Faculty members were described as flexible and supportive and frequently monitored student progress. Their primary duty was to teach, with less academic advising and professional development requirements than TC. Table 5.3 Summary a_{ Catalog Descriptions, Course Requirements, and Interview Responses forCC Catalog Descriptions High quality learning laboratories that provide on campus experiences, particularly in food and beverage Instructors hired based upon relevant industry experience. Frequent expert visits, guest speakers, and tours of local businesses. Block scheduling with close integration of general education rooted in student interest. Faculty primary teaching with limited academic advising or professional development requirements Program in writing across the curriculum. Study and work abroad for extensive course work. Limited to no online courses. Student Interviews Small classes with instructor time. Respect for instructor experience in HM. Case studies "kept it real." Group assignments and presentations very frequent. Comprehensive exam for English standards. Experiential labs in FB very hands on and enforces industry standards Instructors monitor group progress in labs. Teachers accommodating and flexible and serve as mentors. Off-campus tours helpful for HM operations. The scheduling of classes at CC was compulsory in the first year, where students frequently took courses together with students in their field. Students 132

PAGE 151

appreciated the small class size. Administrators planned for an upside down curriculum where students took courses in their major while completing general education. Course requirements by a percentage of overall requirements for the degree were higher in HM operations and business than TC (see Tables H.l-6, Appendix H) but lower for general education Although general education requirements were less the program implemented writing across the curriculum program where students reported frequent writing assignments and prompt and constructive feedback from faculty. Graduating students had to complete a standard exam for writing competency. TC Cla ss room Domain At TC, the catalog descriptions described an environment focused on enhancing student learning through experience Table 5.4 summarizes the catalog and student descriptions of the classroom domain at TC. Although the program lacked facilities for replicating the industry environment, the faculty frequently used field trips and private events to allow for student practical experience. An internship was an option at TC compared to the required internship at TC where a higher percentage of coursework was required through practical work experience (See Appendix H, Tables H.l-6) There were also higher requirements for general education courses than CC which offered opportunities for students to take more artistic and diversity related courses. 133

PAGE 152

Table 5.4 Summary of catalog descriptions, course requirements, and interview responses for TC Catalog Descriptions Focus on learning through experience with integration of activities in local industry. Limited on campus resources for replicating the workplace, particularly in food and beverage. Course work used campus and department events to build practical experience in HM Faculty had advising, service, professional development and teaching role. Study abroad program for several HM courses Student Interviews Frequent writing assignments. Student presentations built communication skills. Group work dominated some courses Food labs enforced sanitation and hygiene Private events and catering projects integrated into course work Teachers helpful and take responsibility for student grade. Guest speakers were common. Off-campus tours contributed to appearance and poise. Faculty members at TC had higher requirements for office hours, advising, service, and professional development than CC. There was no evidence from students that the workload on faculty hindered their development in any way. Students described faculty as helpful and taking responsibility for their grades. Pedagogy in the classroom frequently included guest speakers and off-campus tours. Faculty members were engaged with HM standards particularly in sanitation and hygiene or sponsored events. There were online and study abroad courses 134

PAGE 153

offered, but the students interviewed did not speak of those courses contributing to their competency. Campus Domain To identify differences between schools in the campus domain I analyzed the official school catalog at each school to gain a perspective of what types of programs, activities, and services were available to students. The campus descriptions were important because they represented the types of engagement opportunities that available in the campus domain. Therefore participation in campus activities may have contributed to student professional competency. Technical College TC was described in the college catalog as providing a campus atmosphere where students were engaged in lifelong learning that benefited themselves and their future career. The college offered a registrar and academic advising office that provided multiple sources of academic advising support. New student advising was conducted by academic advisors that provided assistance to the more than 50 undergraduate degree programs. Additional academic advising on student progress career and other support was conducted by faculty advisors and department chairs Career services were available to students through career counselors that provided general job assistance Hospitality specific career services were provided by departmental faculty. 135

PAGE 154

Students that had a need for additional counseling had access to a counseling center that provided personal therapy, support groups, stress management, and crisis intervention training and support. For students with academic challenges an advising center provided support for documented disabilities. The advising center negotiated accommodations for students with diagnosed disability and functional limitations. Examples of some of the services included note takers extended test time, private rooms for testing and disability counseling Some additional advising functions included a writing center, Gay Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender services, International student services, high school upward bound learning communities for at risk students, tutoring, veteran, and health services. In addition to services directly related to academic support and special needs students, the college offered student life services that enhanced the college experience. Some of the student life services included judicial affairs to monitor disciplinary issues and a student activities office Some of the sponsored student activities included; distinguished lecture program, student clubs leadership groups technology services student media, and student government. The campus facilities included recreation activities on campus and sponsored off-campus activities. Students had access to a large recreation facility for intramural athletics and NCAA intercollegiate athletics program Additional campus facilities included a large regional research library, study rooms and 136

PAGE 155

computer labs. There were no campus dormitories; however a housing office provided off-campus coordinated private housing and assistance. There were several academic and social fraternities and sororities; however none had on campus housing. The HM program sponsored several clubs for students related to the hospitality profession. Faculty members served as advisors to these clubs. The program clubs coordinated official functions, community events, and service opportunities for students. Outside of the program there were college-wide clubs related to leadership, student government, honor societies, and special interest groups. Career College CC was described in the college catalog as having provided campus services to support student life, academic and career advising. The types of support services available for students included academic and career advising that was completed by administrative advisors. Faculty members had advising assignments to assist students with their coursework and life / career mentorship. Some faculty were assigned as advisors to student clubs. Student services at CC were geared toward providing experiential learning and career services that prepared students for a successful transition to their chosen profession. To assist students in their learning, student services provided an active guest speaking program where industry professionals lectured on career options for 137

PAGE 156

students. An experiential learning and career services office helped students identify employers for the required internship program as well as permanent jobs upon graduation The student services also included an international study office where students could plan some of their coursework and internship abroad. Several student services offered students the opportunity to enhance their learning in the classroom. A writing center was available to tutor students on effective writing skills. Beyond tutoring, special services were available to students with documented needs such as note takers or physical accommodations. Additional student services included administrative support for student clubs. The clubs were reported in the catalog as providing important opportunities for students to engage in their community and Jearn the importance of service. Clubs were oriented toward career choices and professional organizations that related to future careers There were also some non-professional clubs that provided volunteer services to the community leadership opportunities and service learning. Although the clubs were not required, they were strongly encouraged by faculty, administrators, and advisors. The campus environment included residence halls with shared or private rooms for students on campus dining religiou s services and athletics There was one fraternity / sorority that had an organized housing section within the dormitories. The administration of the dormitories was conducted campus housing and supported by student resident advisors. Students had the opportunity to compete in 138

PAGE 157

intramural or limited NCAIA athletic programs. Campus facilities included a recreation and fitness center and some off-campus sponsored recreational programs. Other campus facilities included a career and general education oriented library, study halls, and computer labs. Survey Frequency Analysis To further understand the participants in this study and how their group characteristics might have affected the campus domain I calculated demographic reports for the participants in the study. Table 5.5 identifies the types of activities that students indicated that they participated in by program. The two programs were not similar in these categories. The primary differences were related to housing where a higher amount of CC students lived on campus in sponsored housing (N = 60) compared to sponsored off-campus housing at TC (N = 5). Few CC students were part-time (N = 4) compared to TC (N = 34). Furthermore, CC had higher participation rates in fraternities (N = 15), student clubs (N = 95), and athletics (N = 19) compared to TC fraternities (N = 14), student clubs (N = 70), and athletics (N = 3 ). When the participation rates identified in Table 5.5 were analyzed as a percentage of participants in the study the differences between programs became more apparent. CC had higher participation in athletics (M = 9.5) compared to TC (M = 1.3 ). More students at TC had less time to engage on campus because they 139

PAGE 158

had higher amounts ofpart-time students (M= 14) compared to CC (M= 2). With on campus housing, CC had higher resident students (M = 30) compared to TC (M = .02). For those activities that involved students in organized programs, the programs were similar in fraternity/sorority participation where CC was higher (M = 8) compared to TC, (M = 6) but differed in club participation where CC had higher participation rates (M = 48) compared to TC (M = 29). Table 5.5 Survey Participant Campus and O.ffcampus Characteristics b_v Frequency School Total Athlete PartDormitory Live Work Fraternity Club TC cc Total Participants time Off238 199 437 3 19 22 34 4 38 5 60 65 cam us 233 133 366 Student Interview Analysis 216 156 372 14 15 29 70 95 165 To describe the campus domain from student responses in the interview the responses were organized into nodes in the NviVO software to look for the type of activity/service described in Table 1.2. Table 5.6 lists the nodes, number of sources, and references per program. The purpose was to verify that the types of activities and services listed in this table occurred in these programs. The results indicated the frequency of student references to activities and services that occurred in the campus domain. Each of the activities listed in Table 5-5 is discussed individually 140

PAGE 159

in the following sections with the exception of the activities that had no responses; social activities, learning communities, student services, and study abroad. Table 5.6 Frequency q(Campus Domain Interview Respondents by Program Campus Domain cc TC Sources cc TC References Nodes Sources Sources Total References References Total Athletics I 0 I 2 0 2 Campus Activities 7 0 7 II 0 II Campus Housing 3 0 3 4 0 4 Campus Volunteering I 2 2 2 4 Faculty Interactions I I 2 I 7 8 Faculty Mentoring 0 I I 0 I Fraternity-Sorority l 0 I I 0 I L e arning 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communities Peer Interactions I 2 3 2 3 5 Social Activities 0 0 0 0 0 0 Srudent Clubs 6 3 9 21 9 30 Student Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 Srudy Abroad 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tutoring 0 I 0 I Total 23 8 31 43 20 63 Athletics One student from CC responded regarding the value of participating in athletics. For Student-G serving on a team sport promoted leadership ability. When group projects were assigned it made a management role appear more natural because the student had a leadership role in athletics that transferred to organizing peers in group work, as Student-G described "it fell on me kind of naturally, I kind of had to step up and learn how to lead a team and you know kind of learn how to not manage people, but learn how to get the best out of other people." 141

PAGE 160

Campus Activities No students from TC commented on campus activities that benefited their development. However at CC several students referred to campus sponsored activities that focused on appearance, professionalism and career development. The events were described by Student-E as having been "encouraged obviously to go to those sessions. Student-B stated "we take a whole day off from class just to be professional and to you know speak with the employers or whoever comes to our campus. I think it's great." Student-E described "fashion shows that show us how to dress, etiquette and dining room classes that teach us how to present ourselves at meal functions." These sponsored activities were described as a pervasive part of the campus culture as Student-F commented you learn a lot about how to dress nice and look nice at this campus." The same student continued and described how professional dress was required "you know suit and tie when you 're meeting industry people, that s big with them For this student the connection with industry was important to their development because the school "brings in actual companies from all over the country that are looking for employees and they bring them to our campus." Student-F further explained that "you do this since you're a freshman, so by the time you're a senior and you're ready to graduate you know how everything works Adding that I think by doing that it's definitely contributes to the hire rate out of school which is close to 1 00%." 142

PAGE 161

At the campus activities that promoted industry connections Student-G described how "they have different business cards that you can get for students The student said that "it's nice you know because then you have something to give to people you know." The student continued adding that "you can keep in touch with them a little bit better with business cards ... As a result of that a few of us ended up actually getting either internship or job opportunities." Another benefit from career fairs and connecting with the industry was an opportunity to connect classroom theory to practical industry problems. Student-F described a campus activities speaking event from a panel of industry leaders where current industry problems were discussed. This student said that it "takes the classroom material that they re trying to teach you ... coming from people that are in the industry ... and take it into you know a real job setting." Campus Housing With the lack of student housing, no students from TC commented on campus housing having influenced their professional competency. However, several CC students referred to campus housing as providing learning in hygiene skills, living with others and fostering good communication. Student-C said that "living in the dorms definitely has its problems and sometimes communication with an RA or the policies that the dorm life maintains When it carne to hygiene skills Student-E explained "it's been impressed on us we're living with 150, 200 students in a building so really, really being respectful of others space and property and 143

PAGE 162

obviously their hygiene and other policies that we have to follow." As a former resident advisor Student-C learned security and safety skills from "watching campus security take action for like they sent a notice of the things that they're changing and if you feel like you've been harassed or where you can go to keep safe, like they give safety tips on how to protect your vehicles." Campus Volunteering One student from each school commented on the value of participating in campus volunteer activities where benefits included networking, identifying problems, and leadership skills. Student-C from CC described working with a homeless project where there were networking opportunities with charity leaders, explaining that "I think that opportunity to volunteer that way helps you know networking and seeing what other places or other charities that are out there and working with people." Student-2 described working closely with faculty and learning how to solve problems that arose during sponsored events. This student stated "there were some problems and we worked them out." Student-2 continued and commented on gaining leadership skills and connection with teachers, as was explained "I think that showing the teacher or the chef or whoever that you're willing to even do that, (volunteer) they're more willing to give you that opportunity to be the leader." 144

PAGE 163

Faculty Campus Interactions During campus sponsored events and activities students would sometimes interact with faculty members. Student-S from TC described volunteering for a "wine and food thing they had ." At this event the student was "helping with the drinks and stuff like that." The same student also described doing a donating activity ... it was a Christmas charity thing." During these types of activities the student worked closely with faculty and other students as was described "you're always in a group, I mean volunteer activities and stuff, it's always group thing so you learn For Student-S working closely with two faculty members generated a sense of ethical responsibility, as was explained when you're volunteering it's like you, you re kind of supporting (the school). . and if you're not ethical you're kind of giving (the school) a bad rep." Faculty Mentoring One student at TC described how when working closely with a faculty member that a relationship developed beyond advising or lecture and became a mentor relationship. StudentI described I think we've got really great professors and they're some that are here just to teach I think and there are some here that are here because they want to be your mentor, they want to be your leader, they want to be a good example and you know, they've really helped. 14S

PAGE 164

Fraternity-Sorority Participation Participation in a fraternity or sorority provided one CC student with the opportunity to have observed leadership skills and identified operational problems. Student-C explained "in the sorority group and just seeing the different conflicts that they have and seeing who comes up with the solution." For this student an observation was made regarding formal and informal leaders, as was described "I keep in mind that there's the leader of appearance and then there's the leader of action." Student-C further described how sometimes formal leaders did not get the job done, and said I feel like the leader of appearance can just be, they have the title as the leader, but then sometimes the leader of action can also have the title as the leader but they're actually doing the work. And I I see things like that and just pay attention. Peer Interactions Peer interactions that occurred during sponsored campus events were described by one TC student as an opportunity to have worked with different types of people in new situations. Student-S stated that "in the classroom they act completely different than they would totally act in a different atmosphere." For this student competency was developed in working with people in situations outside the classroom "because not everyone is the same so you learn you know how to kind of negotiate with the different personalities and different types of people." 146

PAGE 165

A CC student described that during work study on campus or close interactions in dormitories and the library, opportunities occurred to study and mentor peers. Student-C described "one of the girls that I work with sometimes we help each other with papers, especially when neither of us want to do them, but we will do them." When asked where such interactions occur, the student responded that they occurred in "the library or even at work study." Student-C valued the opportunity to motivate peers to do work and said that "if they're having a problem or if they're stuck in their writing with the paper they're doing I'll be like, well if you want I can read it and see where you can go.'' Student Clubs The highest frequency of student responses in the campus domain was in reference to student clubs with six CC students and three TC students contributing to 30 overall references. The discussions with students that were members of student clubs centered upon their learning to work with diverse students to accomplish a goal, navigating administrative hurdles, and gaining industry connections. These experiences tended to boost student leadership, communication, and professional appearance and poise skills. One TC student commented that leadership could not be developed in the classroom it had to involve a group of people on a common task. Student-S said "I don t think the classes kind of you know give that leadership kind of thing. It is more like who has the strongest voice or something. It's never really leading." A CC student commented in a similar 147

PAGE 166

manner regarding leadership opportunities and described a campus sponsored leadership program at CC where you take more leadership courses and work with student clubs. During leadership courses Studentsaid they "focus on taking our leadership skills and applying them off-campus and in our industry and our community as well." Through that process, the student described gains in professionalism and ethics, as was described "I was exposed to ethics and standards of proper business practices and non-profit development and stuff like that." Studentalso added "we talked a lot about ethics and corporate responsibility, corporate and social responsibility and stuff like that." Students reported taking leadership roles in their student clubs which were challenging and time consuming, but a good learning experience. Student-B said "I was the secretary ... and I took like three fundraisers in to my own hands and actually created them for the group and they're still doing them this year, so. So, I guess that was kind of relatively a leadership thing." Another CC student served as a historian for a health professions society. For Student-H peer interaction skills were gained by working with different people, as was explained "dealing with those individuals can be trying at times, just because different opinions and what people want to do ... learning how to deal with, or calm people and deal with those types of situations.'' A CC student described how the burden of leadership in a club created communication problems with the school, as Student-A described "the biggest part that probably with you know I would say, collaborating type of thing is 148

PAGE 167

trying to get things through the administration here at school and through the student government." Similar frustrations were expressed by Student-4 from TC who commented on the burden of leadership roles and workload and said that l was the treasurer for my restaurant club, but l dropped it recently just because I'm so busy with work and school I can't you know perform the tasks that I want to actually do with the clubs." This student commented further that "membership in several clubs was common among students Another theme that developed regarding student club participation was the enhancement on skills related to networking with industry leaders, communication professionalism and poise. Student-4 commented on the networkin g potential and said "you go to a meeting or a function and you start ... or people that work in the industry, you bounce ideas off each other in you know how to get repeat business to come in and stuff like that." For this student the club experience was more valuable in the classroom, as was further described "so the clubs, yeah, but as far as classrooms not really." Student-B described how at formal functions they have to speak in front of large groups "and we usually get up there and pronounce what we are in the club. Student-E describ e d how being a club officer put them in a situation where they had to make formal presentations and interact with other students, saying that we have a lot of opportunities to present information to other students and to our 149

PAGE 168

members as well." These interactions on campus had the benefit of working with a diverse student body, as Student-G said l think what really helped is that this campus is so diverse and there's such a wide variety of people that you really learn how to interact with different people and get along with people of different backgrounds. This student continued and said that "the professional student organization that I'm in ... we've done a lot of different off-campus activities." During these off-campus events students were required to practice their appearance and poise skills, as Student-G described "when you go down to those events we, everyone is in a suit and tie and everything. Up until last year I had never even worn a suit or anything like that.'' For a TC student, meeting people and engaging the industry boosted their communication skills. Student-2 said "it's definitely forced me out into the social scene of talking to people, just something I'm not comfortable with but it's good because I'm learning new things." Student-4 commented on professional dress requirements similar to the rules at CC where "we go to a meeting or a function and ... we do dine outs and meet with the owner and we're all required to dress up." For this student it was about professional standards, as was further described "You know there's just those set guidelines so people don 't, you know, and 1 don't know, make a fool out of the club or anything else." 150

PAGE 169

Tutoring One student from CC commented on the benefit of being tutored in the writing center. Student-C said "I go down there for a lot of help with my writing to make sure that, you know because when l write it looks awesome. The student learned that whatever you write isn't as awesome as you think it is The writing center reviewed the students' paper and provided specific advice to improve the grammatical structure of the paper. Student-C further explained "when I read it aloud or I have someone else read it, it doesn't make sense because maybe sentence fragments or things like that." Campus Domain Summary The analysis of the campus domain included a triangulation of the catalog descriptions of the programs and frequency of campus activities to student interview responses. The results indicated that the campus domain was an engaging environment, particularly for those that lived on campus or were involved in student clubs and activities. The first data included descriptions in the college catalog of the two programs Table 5. 7 reports the summary of the catalog descriptions compared to the student descriptions of the campus domain at CC. For CC students the campus domain represented an involved atmosphere with accessible student housing on campus. Students were highly encouraged, if not required to join a student club There was also availability of athletics, student activities, sororities, fraternities, 151

PAGE 170

campus sponsored social events and a guest lecture series. Student services included a writing center and other special services for students. The career center provided internship assistance and helped students find jobs in the HM field. Table 5.7 Summary of Catalog Descriptions and Interview Responsesfor the Campus Domain at CC Catalog Descriptions Student Interviews On-campus dormitories. Campus fashion and etiquette shows Involved career service recruiting and placement in Dress code enforced internships Writing center available for tutoring Business cards for industry functions Visiting lecture program for hospitality leaders Housing provided leadership talking with students Sorority participation helped with Almost enforced participation in clubs. appearance and poise. Intramural and limited intercollegiate athletics. Clubs provided leadership. volunteerism and social issue development. Fraternities and Sororities have dormitory sections. Peer to peer tutoring occurred with close living and working conditions. Club s were oriented toward the HM profession. Students described the value of a campus that enforced standards for professional appearance and dress. Functions that interacted with the industry required a coat and tie. Students appreciated the availability of business cards for students and frequently interacted with industry professionals on campus. For those students involved in athletics and fraternities, they had the opportunity to learn valuable leadership skills and improve competency in professional appearance and 152

PAGE 171

poise. The close living conditions encouraged students to study together and tutor one another on course assignments and projects. TC Campus Domain At TC the catalog descriptions described the campus domain as a commuting campus without housing (Table 5.8) Students could have lived in sponsored housing and commuted to the campus via shuttle. There was a wide arrange of student services for developing general education skills Student activities included scholarship assistance for student clubs and activities. Although there were fraternities and sororities there was no sponsored housing. The program sponsored clubs specific to the HM field and there were a broad array of campus wide clubs. The athletic program included NCAA and intramural teams. Students described active involvement in student clubs. Although the amount of students involved in clubs was less than CC, students valued participation in clubs. They appreciated activities that were sponsored by the program and referred to department events as improving their competency in HM When students got to work with faculty on sponsored events they developed close mentorship relationships. Leadership roles in clubs were demonstrated to provide competency in public speaking dealing with diverse persons motivating and leading. 153

PAGE 172

Table 5.8 Summmy of Catalog Descriptions and Interview Responses for the Campus Domain at TC Catalog Descriptions Focus on learning through experience. with integration of activities in local industry Limited on campus resources for r e plicating the workplace, particularly in food and beverage Course work used campus and department events to build practical exp e rience in HM Faculty had a dvising, service, professional development and teaching role. Study abroad program for several HM courses Student Interviews Frequent writing assignments. Student pres e ntations built communication skills. Group work dominated some courses Food labs enforced sanitation and hygiene Private events and catering projects integrated into course work. Teachers helpful a nd take responsibility for student grade. Guest speakers were common. Off-campus tours contributed to appearance and poise. Off-campus Domain The analysis of the off-campus domain included a triangulation of data from the student survey, catalog descriptions, and student interviews. The summary of the official school catalog at each school was analyzed to gain a perspective of what types of programs, activities, and services were available to students. The offcampus descriptions were important because they represented the types of monitoring activities that occurred in the off-campus domain. The descriptions in 154

PAGE 173

the catalog presented types of off-campus experiences available to students while the student interviews described the types of specific experiences that developed HM competency. T ec hnical Colleg e TC was described in the college catalog as having supported off-campus student activities in the areas of housing assistance, philanthropy study abroad, and career assistance The student services offices included a housing assistance office that posted available housing and transportation sources to a s sist students. The office also coordinated a housing program with private housing companies that had dormitory style housing for students and transportation for them to and from campus. The housing was not administered by the school in any way other than having provided on campus offices to assist students in their housing plans. Student services also had a career office where job placement assistance was offered The services included help with resumes, letters and identified companies to for potential employment. The service was for all of the students on campus and alumni. The department assisted students with job placement and provided online and bulletin board postings of available jobs. There was one faculty member in the HM department assigned to coordinate internships and keep available listings of companies to provide internship opportunities. The same faculty member taught a course for internship students which was an elective 155

PAGE 174

course. Student services also supported student clubs and other organizations to promote philanthropic activities to benefit the local community. Other off-campus activities were coordinated by campus recreation and a study abroad faculty member. Recreational off-campus activities were available through campus recreation for outdoor adventure and other activities off-campus. Students in the HM program had the opportunity to take some of their courses in a study abroad format. There were two trips scheduled per year (primarily in tourism). The classes were conducted by the HM department faculty, but in an international setting. Career College CC was described in the college catalog as having provided off-campus services to support student life and career advising. The types of support services available at the career advising center included job placement for current students and alumni. The office maintained several full-time employees that identified companies for internship and managed cooperative education opportunities. The work experience coursework was a substantial part of course requirements in HM majors. Students were required to apply for internships and other work experience programs. The coordinators conducted site visits and assisted the companies in creating a structured internship to enhance HM program objectives. Student and academic services coordinated a study abroad program through an international office. The international office identified colleges and universities !56

PAGE 175

in several foreign countries where students could take academic courses The courses met program requirements at CC but were taught by peer faculty in similar institutions abroad Additional otT-campus support services included a recreational program for off-campus student activities, and housing assistance for those students not housed on campus. Surv ey Fr e quency To further understand the participants in this study and how their group characteristics might have affected the off-campus domain, demographic reports were calculated. Table 5.4 reported the types of off-campus experiences that students participated in by school. Both TC (N = 216) and CC ( N = 156) had high participation rates of students reporting that they worked or volunteered while going to school. However when calculated as a percentage of students in the program, a higher percentage ofTC students worked (M= 91) compared to TC (M = 78) In terms of housing, TC with no dormitories on campus had a higher amount of students that reported they lived off-campus ( N = 233) compared to CC ( N = 133) Stud e nt lnt ervieM-'S To describe the off-campus domain from student responses in the interviews the responses were organized into nodes in the NviVO software to look for the type of activities / services described in Figure 1.2. Table 5 9 lists the nodes, number of sources, and references per school. The results indicated the frequency 157

PAGE 176

of student references to activities and services that occurred in the off-campus domain. Each of these activities listed in Table 5.8 is discussed individually in the following sections with the exception of the activities that had no responses; cohort interactions, community projects, diverse coworkers, discussions / debates, faculty interactions, peer interactions, and social reading. Table 5.9 Frequency of Campus Domain Interview Respondents by Program Campus Domain cc TC Sources cc TC References Nodes Sources Sources Total References References Total Cohort Interactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverse Coworkers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronic Medium 1 0 1 I 0 1 Family-Friends 5 3 8 14 5 19 Discussions/Debates 0 0 0 0 0 0 Faculty Interactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peer Interactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiritual Activities 3 0 3 7 0 7 Volunteer Work I I 2 2 2 4 Work Experience 8 6 14 81 65 146 Diverse Settings 0 1 0 I Total 19 10 29 106 72 178 Electronic Medium One CC student commented on the importance of staying current in legal aspects of business by watching local media. Student-C said I think watching the news and seeing what's going on out there. Being a participant member in society ... and the different laws that they're posing out there ... I try to be socially aware of the different laws that are coming. 158

PAGE 177

F amity-Friends Family and friend influence on HM competency was strongly rooted in the experience of several students. Student-3 from TC commented on the value of coming from a strong family background that drives you in work and school, saying that 1 think I have a really good support team back home So that translates into work and school and everything." Family had influence on other students too, particularly in developing a sense of the importance for appearance and poise ethics, and working well with others. Several CC students commented on the importance of family instilling a sense of pride in your appearance, as Student-A described "I sort of grew up knowing you know what to how to dress for certain occasions and how to eat properly and such." When asked to explain further, the student added that ''actually my family we've all gone to Cotillion ... even my father when he was a child." Student-Chad a similar influence from a grandparent and commented that my grandpa, he used to work for the city and he was always like, you know you got to, you got to dress sharp, and that's just always what he told me, dress s harp ." Student-H described in detail my mother had been a nurse for 48 years and most of my time in my life she wore whites you know. Her whites were always pressed. Her shoes were always shined you know and she would say you know press your stuff and shine your shoes. It just kind of rubbed off you know Family influence was also important to these students in building an understanding of teamwork and working well with peers and diverse persons. 159

PAGE 178

Student-A said that for a sense of business prowess in dealing with work relationships that "I've probably learned more from my parents and grandparents than anybody else when it comes to anything in business." When asked to explain what was learned Student-A added you get employees that want to be that team member and you get employees who don t and it's sort of, you either make the situation work or you know you have to sort of cut them loose to keep the team as a whole. The same student learned motivational skills by helping a family member with an addiction and mediating family strife Student-F learned about getting along well with others from family, and said my parents told us like to get along with your siblings you know you ve got to act this way You ve got to you know be nice to everyone. Give them the benefit of the doubt and that's pretty much what I do at work. StudentI from TC added that working with diverse persons can come from family influence as was explained "I have children of my own that are as young as four years old so I can kind of relate with many different age groups. Family influence seemed to set a basic set of standard for some students when it came to ethics and hygiene When describing the importance of ethics, Student-F commented that I mean they covered it in a classroom format but I felt that that's the kind of stuff that you should just have ingrained in you and you should know that. Friends sometimes helped one CC student with personal hygiene skills, as Student-C explained 160

PAGE 179

we'll teach each other how to keep nails clean, how to keep your hair from being greasy and to keep it clean, because we'll have to do your make up so that it's not too much ... just to be presentable, stuff like that. Student-1 explained the importance of basic hygiene and described that "I have four kids ... so I'm very anal, not only in my home but even in the classroom about you know, about that (hygi e ne)." Spiritual Activities Students that were involved in religious activities outside of campus reported having gained a sense of importance for moral ethics, personal appearance, communication skills, and customer relations. All of the responses were from CC students. When it came to understanding good ethics, Student-G commented that when it came to religion "having that background has kind of given me an understanding of what is right and what is wrong." The student continued and explained "I've grown up with a family who's been you know a pretty religious family so I guess it's not so much well I mean it's ethical but it s more religion. Student-F commented on the important of dressing nice for "church days and stuff like that you re always expected to look nice and on a certain level no ripped up blue jeans t-shirts and stufflike that." When a student took an active role in teaching at Church they practiced communication skills which Student-C explained "I teach a lesson every once in awhile in my church activiti es so I have to get in front of people and you know direct the lesson." The same student also 161

PAGE 180

gained an awareness of making others feel comfortable which related to customer service skills, and explained "I take the time and energy to get to know them and introduce myself and say, thank you for coming or welcome or how are you today, that kind of relates to keeping people to come back." For Student-C although it was a volunteer spiritual activity it related to work experience, as was said "I think that could help with customers if they feel welcome and I can establish that. Volunteer Work One CC student gave a detailed account of how working as a volunteer was more than an opportunity to practice career skills in culinary arts it was a personally rewarding venture. The student worked for a local AIDS charity to give cooking demonstrations and instructions to clients. The students came from varied backgrounds that did not always have the skills or resources to cook nutritious food. Student-H explained I have to plan my lessons around how we can produce not only good food but nutritious food for their specific condition with what they have Not only did the project help the clients but the student remarked that it's helped me a lot I think . I will really miss when I leave but I can start it somewhere else For Student-H, the project seemed to instill a sense of volunteerism that will be life-long. The student further explained that as a potential dietician "it has helped me see the population in a different light you know more as, not as a friend but as an instructor confidant." 162

PAGE 181

Another volunteer event that a student participated in was a charity event. A TC student described how the event involved working with peers and diverse groups Student-S commented on the value of having collected items for a charity auction and the challenges of working with a student group and explained that it was difficult "because not everyone is the same so you learn you know how to kind of negotiate with the different personalities and different types of people." Working with Div e rse Students One CC student described the value of work experience as providing an opportunity to work with different people that had varied levels of work ethic. To Student-C "you learn how to deal with people and the more places you work the more experience you gain as far as that goes with different types of work ethic." Work Experi e nc e As table 5-8 indicated, working off-campus was the most frequently responded to event in any of the three domains in the college experience (N = 146). With the high amount of student responses in this category it was necessary to organize the student responses in smaller categories. Since the framework of the question asked students to describe activities that contributed to their competency the following sections were organized by the 11 HM competencies. Furthermore, student job choice was their own and could have occurred similarly for students that chose to participate; therefore, program difference was not part of the analysis. 163

PAGE 182

Manage guest problems with sensitivity and care. During work experience students were faced with varied conditions that taught them the importance of handling customer problems with sensitivity and care. Several students stated the importance of a lot of work experience to gain skill in handling guest problems. Student-E explained that working the same job for five summers provided "a lot of experience with guest problems, guest conflicts and stuff like that." Student-G explained that it was not the classroom, but work experience that taught them guest relations and said because you can get the theory in the classroom you know like what you should do when such and such happens but until you actually go out and apply it, you don't really know for sure how it's going to work out. Student-G further explained "the more you work with them the better you get in kind of figuring out how to handle different types of people. Everybody is a little different." Student-C described handling problems as "just dealing with it right there. I just think that's something you can't really learn Student-7 stated that in class "they do talk about it but I think you have to learn that throughout your own experience actually being on the spot." Student-S commented similarly "I feel I get more experience dealing with the guests out there in the real world." For a Student-H with a longer work history it was "15 years of, ofrestaurant experience ... So I would say that just being on the street has prepared me better to deal with guest problems and deal with situation that arise spontaneously." To this 164

PAGE 183

student, it was 'the real type world situation and how to deal with those. It s taken a long time to you know learn how to deal with someone screaming at you, you know and to not lose it or whatever." As Student-H transitioned from restaurant work to health professions the guest problems were described as more severe. This student felt that where you have someone is very ill, or a family member is very ill, you have to deal with them. They deal with completely different stressors than somebody who' s in a restaurant whose steak is a little over cooked. For this student, it was all about experience as Student-H continued "1 think at a restaurant or hospitality industry you have to look inside yourself and draw out, use that bank you know. The work experience for students in the hospitality industry frequently provided experience in handling guest problems. Students referred to multiple jobs that developed their customer problem solving skills, as StudentI said due to my real life experience that 1 've already had working in hotels and working in retail management and such ... It's something you come across in the hospitality industry every day, sometimes several times a day. Student-2 said that working in the back of the house you still had to engage the guest from time to time and explained that "if they had an issue with the dessert or if they needed special assistance with a dessert I was the one to come to." This student further stated "I would say that's definitely where I learned most of that type of stuff with guest problems." Sometimes a guest would be angry as one 165

PAGE 184

Student-4 explained "you know because handling a guest that's furious about something going on, it's you know you're walking into a landmine field." This student further explained that only the more situations that arose the better the skill that was developed, and explained "the more you do it I think the more confidence you get with it." Student-1 explained how customer skills were developed and said "I learned a long time ago just working that the calmer you are and the more empathetic you are the less likely they are to get that upset." Student-B had similar experiences and explained that guests were "sometimes frantic or whatever they bring to the table. It really depends on how you deal with it." To this student the guests "want this, they want that and you've got to be able to accommodate what they want your way, in a sensitive matter of course." Develop positive customer relations. One student described building customer relations having worked in a sport management setting. To Student-E "I was able to understand and develop good customer rapport and what it means to have a customer come back time after time instead of just come and go as they please." It appeared that this student related good customer service to increased business and part of personal success. Student-H described teaching cooking classes successfully as having required anticipation of customer needs. This student said that "I have to plan my lessons around how we can produce not only good food, but nutritious food for their specific condition with what they have." When a 166

PAGE 185

student worked with the same customer in a fixed setting in a nursing home, relationships were built differently, as Student-A described we sort ofbuilt those relationships with those families, you know what their needs are, what their expectations are. You sort of begin to cater to them individually instead of just you know saying that this is cut and dry, what A is and how do you solve A. For Student-A working with seniors was challenging and required a caring mindset to satisfy the customer, as was said "you're dealing with a guest who, yes sir, you know you want to be on their every, every need you want to be able to do for them." The student described further that "I mean even if you can't and you want to make them believe that you can get it for them or meet their satisfaction." Aside from customer relationships and satisfaction a student described building customer relations as having required a consistent treatment to all persons regardless of their social position or influence in the workplace. Student-F described a detailed story of working in a hotel where standards applied to all guests, as follows Okay, the general manager of our hotel has family members come in every now and then. I mean you're not supposed to treat them any better than any other guests but you want to make sure that everything is about the standard it's supposed to be at. And one day we had his brother come in and you know we did our basic, this is the standard how you're supposed to treat everyone and he actually at the end, you know it's like, thank you very much, it was a great expenence. 167

PAGE 186

Demonstrate profe s s ional appearance and poise. For several students the type of work dictated how intense the enforcement of appearance policies As Student-B said it depends on what places you work at you have different managers who expect different things of you. For this student working in 4-star hotels as well as 2 star hotels demonstrated different standards for appearance. To Student-B, "you're not expected to; you don't have the same standards different places. So you're expected different things at different places you know." Student2 described a small business as having lower standards and said appearance standards were "not as much and that's because it's a small business. I think if I worked for more of a corporate company it would be a lot stricter than us When asked if they had written standards Student-2 said l don't have that ; they don't have a list of guidelines you have to have when you work for a small company and it's just kind of doing whatever, so." This was not the case for Student-H who worked for the military and described "I spent time in the Army you know. I broke starch every morning except when I was in the field ... so I think it s important." When asked to explain what breaking starch meant the student described how pressed his uniform was saying that "yeah those pants fit so tight. I mean you had to stick your hand down there to separate them It appeared that uniforms were common among students working as hourly employees. The experience demonstrated value and respect for professional appearance for these students. Student-F explained "I mean like anything you 168

PAGE 187

know, you have a uniform, you're expected to look a certain way when you're dealing with customers, so." When asked to choose what domain influenced the students understanding of appearance standards the most Student-F responded "work was probably the most beneficial currently for me." Student-S commented similarly and said that when developing poise work "teaches you what's the right you know thing to say, the appropriate thing to say. You know the things to do and not to do." Communicat e both wrilten and orally. The type of job provided different types of communication experiences to students. Student-A worked in a health care setting where communication was verbal and quick, as was described "you know everything is sort of handled on the spot, momentarily with what, you know working at hospitals and nursing homes ; it's sort of split second decisions and such." Student-C got practice in telephone skills at a job where I had to explain what it was I was looking for (on the phone) and they were able to give the information back to me." Student-6 had a hospitality job that involved, more than public speaking, but acting in theater and said that "we did my outfit, my costume if you will was a tunic and bright red tights and I was in front of 1200 people doing lighting ceremonies every night. So it, I had no fear. You just have to be comfortable in that situation." Most of the experiences at work described above involved verbal communication, however one student described the importance of communicating 169

PAGE 188

effectively in writing and following up orally to ensure customer satisfaction. Student-6 explained I deal with a 17 page contract with everybody that I've signed up for something. But within a month they'll be back with something that was wrong and you know while the information was given to them in writing, I reiterated what I thought they needed to know. To keep good customer relations, the student understood the value of better communication skills, as Student-6 continued "they're across the desk and it's my fault because I didn't tell them something and you will get caught on those kinds of things. Usually when you least expect it." Written and oral skills were also developed through communicating with different shifts and managers on duty. Student-2 said "I do not talk to my bosses a lot. I don't see them so definitely it is written communication between us and I think that that's really improved on even notes." For Student-4, communicating with an incoming shift was not through writing or notes, it was given verbally when a new shift manager arrived ''it's usually like a 5 minute, well I'm going to talk about what's going on in the restaurant, what happened and stuff like that." To this student shift communication was important. At the end of the shift a report was required via email, as Student-4 described "I have to email them every night with numbers of course and kind of give a little spiel on what happened. So I've got to make sure that looks professional and proper.'' Student-Gadded that communicating effectively was required for worker safety, describing "I worked 170

PAGE 189

for the road and bridge department ... if you're not communicating it can be really dangerous." Achieve positive working relationships with employees. To develop good working relationships with employees several students described an effective manager that they modeled at work. As Student-G described "1 had a great boss actually I worked for ... and he would, you know he wouldn't seem like he was the boss.'' To this student the manager had calm and supportive nature, as was further explained "He would, I mean everybody just had this respect for him and knew that he was the boss and do what he said, but at the same time he was willing to jump in with you to help out." The matter of respect for employees and the work they do seemed to be a trait of good relationship building skills, as Student-G described, it made me realize that's the better management style when you can give them, when your employees respect you and want to work hard for you because they get along with you rather than just working hard for you because they feel like they have to, you know. Another effective manager was described by Student-6 as "probably the best manager I've ever had. She was concerned with us individuals as well as our work career and wanted to see us go forward." Another student had a similar manager that was viewed as a great example for work relationships, as Student-H described "I learned a lot about having to deal with customers and how to deal with you know 171

PAGE 190

staff then I have with anybody." The manager was viewed as having a good style because they were friendly with employees, whereas I think his management style and the way he managed people, he got friendly with them but at the same time, you know he realized that he had to hold this image that he was the boss in order to keep their respect. For Student-3 such casual relationships without tension were great at work, as was described "I think it's a good thing to have a great relationships at work. It kind of helps relieves some of the anxiety and stress that you may find with work." The ability to maintain respect with peers and managers was commented on by several students. To these students, being overly friendly and socializing with peers and managers was not a good idea at work. Student-S stated that at work if you try to develop relationships with them (employe es ) and it never seems to work over an amount of time .. I've got to work with them, but you know I just, hello, hi, goodbye and that's it. Student-2 said it more sternly, "the biggest thing I've learned in terms of employee relationships is you cannot be friends with your employees and especially as an employer." To this student ''there s a line that needs to be drawn in terms of going out with them, hanging out with them on the weekends. I've just seen so many downfalls ... it leads to problems" The type of work experience influenced students in different ways, as student-A said that if you're at a smaller business "it's, you know smaller more hands on, you can go and you can help people with their situation and be there if 172

PAGE 191

something were to happen." For this student they also developed good relationships at a large business, but it was the culture of the workplace that assisted the working relationships. At this work experience, Student-A explained "everybody is a team member and you have to help each other out type of thing. Whereas, you know it's not you're not just a number you're an individual." Student-C described the motivation behind getting along with employees as based on getting good reviews at work regardless of whether they actually liked their coworkers or not. Student-C explained "I think having a positive working relationships with employees even if I don't want to be involved personally ... my personal life is good because that way it helps keep communication clear." This student wanted to do good work and not have conflicts, as was described. good relationships "helps the work to get done faster and there's not so many disagreements and arguments if I understand the person I'm working with and they understand me." The development of good working relationship skills was sometimes described as natural or developed through earning respect at work. StudentI said "l seem to get along really well with both young and older people. It's just, I don't know, some people have the gift of gab and I guess that's me." For another student, good relationship skills were earned by working up through the business and developing relationships slowly. Student-4 described being given a trial positions as a manager. By having worked as a server first, the "staffkind of had a smooth transition for me to get upper management." The same student said that respect and 173

PAGE 192

good relationships were earned by being able to help out in both the front and back of the house. "Like yesterday we were short a prep cook and some of those guys were kind of giving me guffand being like oh yeah you can't do this." The kitchen staffs complained and said "get in the kitchen and help us out." Since Student-4 had some kitchen skills through coursework, respect and good relationships were earned, because "I can actually get in the kitchen and do stuff" Gaining respect at work was difficult for a younger student, as Student-7 explained 'Tm younger than them and have them respect you but if you respect them they'll respect you." For this student earning respect was difficult and was overcome by hard work, as Student-7 explained "It's taken me a while to get used to it and I'll never get used to it, but if everybody is doing what I'm doing, then they're going to respect you. Identffj operational problems When students were at work they frequently noticed problems. Sometimes students would be involved in solutions and sometimes expect management to develop solutions. The type of problems varied by job type, especially in restaurants where equipment problems were reported, as Student-0 described "there's, like we've had tons of problems that, because I worked at many different restaurants so. We've had problems with coolers and customers." Student-2 noticed equipment and purchasing problems, and said "My restaurant has had some issues with equipment and trying to find the cheapest way to fix something but then learning that sometimes the cheapest way isn't the way to go." It appeared that the student not only noticed problems, but was aware of the 174

PAGE 193

difficulty in finding an economical solution. The student further described having had communication problems with the manager and would sometimes attempt to organize the work duties to prevent problems. Student-2 said You totally respect them but I feel like a lot of times my boss, who is in charge of all the ordering for the restaurant I would write him notes to order me certain products and he doesn t do it, and that's frustrating This student seemed to learn problem solving skills, despite management failure, as was described "So I think just more the organizational piece in terms of problems in the restaurants, it's definitely something I ve learned a lot." For Student-6, identifying operational problems was a personal trait and not something that could not have been taught as was described working for a theme park "the type of person that I was identified as was one that likes to focus on a problem keep it rolling but when one that is also very interested in how and why something works." To this student others at work did not have the same approach to work, as was said "I feel most comfortable when I feel I've got an understanding of what's going on How the system is moving and what it works through." Student-S would not only notice problems, but offered solution s that became company policy. After finding a solution to a problem, the student said "the manager was like hey we have a new way to do it. The student continued and said ''I just want to get the work done and I want to do it efficiently ... and if it operates well then hey." 175

PAGE 194

One student noticed problems between cashier shifts, but did not consider it a personal duty to implement the solution. Student-C explained "I worked in the fuel station every once in awhile and when it was time for your lunch somebody would take over and they would be handling your drawer." To this student it was a problem with the responsibility of an accurate cash drawer, as was explained further it "is very stressful because somebody else is touching the money and you re responsible completely for all that money and you have to calculate how much you drop in the safe after you get your drawer .. your personally responsible." Student-C did not approach fellow employees, and explained that was a problem and so I went to management and said hey I know there's nothing you can do about us not having the same drawer but maybe could you talk to the person and tell them and retrain them on when it's appropriate to drop the money into the safe? Student-C was worried about the large amount of cash and it became a personal safety issue which was explained "if you get a hold up, how much money are you going to lose in your drawer and things like that.'' For this student the type of work dictated that the employee was not responsible for issues, but the student did identify and report problems, as was explained "I always go to my supervisor and tell him, this is my problem and I don t know how to fix it." It appeared to Student-C that problem solutions were a management responsibility, but sometimes the student would present a solution such as "I 'll see if they can train me more on something that I do not fully understand." 176

PAGE 195

Maintain professional and ethical standards. The type of ethical decisions at work varied for the student participants. Sometimes it was an observance of poor decisions by others and other times personal ethical decisions that were made. Student-B reported that the ethical standards varied by the workplace, as was explained "it depends on where you work and if you're working at a 4-Diamond ... that have different standards or different companies I should say that have different standards." This student described further that having worked at a large 4-Diamond property "if you don't clock out, they take it out of your time anyways and they'd tell you hey, you didn't clock out here and your half an hour was taken out." At another property that was a 2-Diamond workplace they relied on workers to make ethical decisions on clock management, and "if you didn't clock out, well just do it next time. And ifyou keep not doing it, then you're stealing." Student-B observed coworkers not making good ethical decisions regarding clock management and stated that there were "people who want to work there and ride the clock and steal and you know stay there hours and hours more than they need to be." To this student, the employees had bad ethics because "their thing is getting hours and the place, you know where you have standards and ethics, efficiency." Student-B explained that they were internally driven and motivated by good ethics, as was explained "I'm more motivated at a place I make money and work more efficiently." This student was happier working hard and not riding the clock. 177

PAGE 196

Some students observed stealing in the workplace and poor ethical decisions in not showing up for work. Student-C stated "companies say you need to be ethical, that doesn't always happen, that some managers or some other employees won't be ethical." The student described a fellow cashier that stole from a blind customer and said that"[ had a situation where I was bagging groceries and I realized that the cashier was, because the customer was blind, she scanned a bag of chips for herself and didn't tell him it had a charge." Student-C felt the need to notify management and said that "I just was appalled by it. And so I think because I had that reaction I just don't feel like l could do something like that." Another student remembered experiences at work when managers made bad ethical decisions, as Student-G explained we had a great manager down there who was, you know everybody loved him and great at handling the employees and everything but then a few months later they found out that he was stealing from the organization. To this student "you realize that it does go on and there are a lot of people out there that are unethical." Student-\ noticed stealing at work and improper calling in for a shift as was explained "I' ve been up against many ethical situations and jobs whether it would be fellow employees stealing whether it would be fellow coworkers you know not showing up." This student hinted that the manner in which the employees called in was unethical, and stated that "they're saying they're not 178

PAGE 197

showing up." But to Student-! not showing up for work was not "true to your core values in whatever that shows through in your work. The maintenance of ethics was sometimes an internal decision and other times team supported. Student-6 explained "I am team oriented and I tend to wind up working in places that are team drama." This student admitted that it was "easier to then tame your ethical behavior and your your standard policies ... you know adherence to all the codes when you've got a supportive team to back you up." In this case. Student-6 said the team helped curb intentions to be unethical and explained that if "I'm thinking I'm going to get upset or if someone or some person is causing me to put myself in an ethical dilemma I ve got other people I can bounce it off of." Possess lead e rship qualiti es. Learning about leadership qualities at work was facilitated by observing a good manager and modeling their behavior. StudentF described an auto shop manager as extremely professional. Like he was a good leader and like he was good with like money and stuff like that." To this student you have to work for a good leader to actua11y understand what qualities are really better in an authority position." This leader had "started multiple businesses and you know has very strict guidelines for how he does things that was very beneficial to me." The manager also mentored the student as Student-F said he took me through the processes of like you know you can do this and this, but you have to have this first. .. he really, he brought it 179

PAGE 198

down to earth for me. Like this wasn't this you know outlandish concept. The student continued and explained the mentorship role the manager took, stating he "basically showed me, this is how you have to treat people to get what you want but it's not like a manipulation act." However, sometimes the manager's style was not the best, as Student-F described, "he had great ideas but when it came down to actually you know enforcing it, like he had a very almost dictator way of doing it. He's like you're going to do this or you're going to be gone." The student learned from the negative leadership tactics and reflected that "I don't think that's the right way to deal with it." Student-! talked about having worked for a great manager, as was said "I've had several wonderful managers that have lead by example that made me, I mean they make you want to work harder." The student commented further and said "I've been really blessed to have some of those types of mentors that I definitely know what kind of manager and leader I want to be because of those." Student1 added "seeing how other leaders are able to be effective and efficient in what they do makes a big difference." Taking on a leadership role at work was a scary thought to one student who lacked work experience, as said "I feel like now that 1 get to this big industry I'm a little bit shy and timid and I'm scared. Sol would definitely say now that I'm actually in the industry I don't feel as comfortable ." Student-2 commented further and explained "it's intimidating with these big chefs that have these huge 180

PAGE 199

egos and that's hard." Work for this student was not building confidence, as was described I couldn't tell you how many mistakes I've made but after I've made them it seemed like my confidence went down even more. I definitely think that by the time I graduate I will have more of that leadership feel I think. In contrast to student fears, several other students commented about leadership requiring an innate take charge personality without fear of consequences. When Student-4 was raised in the catering business, it was described that "over 13 years you get new staff. So I had to take that role ofbeing a leader as soon as, you know, no one else has stepped up to do it." To this student "it just got ingrained in my head to step up, like okay here's what you've got to do and here's what you've got to do. Just kind of take over and inspire people to get busy." For Student-3, leadership "has to do with personal initiative and personal beliefs and those values and ethics." The student described further that "I think all of that ties into being a good leader and also work experience."Student-5 had similar comments and said You know it's either you're going to step up or you wait for that other person. So you know it's like either taking the first leap. I think in, when in that kind of situation it shows your boss you know all your potentials and stuff. Student-6 talked about how leadership required predetermined personality traits and said that "there absolutely is a personality set of someone that's going to take charge of a situation and you've got to have 181

PAGE 200

it." This student said that "I'm very comfortable taking the leadership role and it isn'tjust doing schedules. It's, it's being the first one to take a step." To another student, taking the first step in a leadership role required an understanding of the necessity to take ownership of the consequences. The student described an experience at a theme park where a handicapped person moved in front of guests waiting for an outdoor concert that were seated on the ground. Student-6 identified the problem and stated that "I mean it's a simple thing if someone is sitting up front in a wheelchair ... they're going to wind up having a multiplied a fact of 50 or 60 people that sit behind them that can't see." This student acted on the problem without a manager present, and explained You have to take charge when you're alone you can't get a hold of them so you can make a decision. And you have to be the one that's not afraid because there are consequences Student-6 further justified the decision, and stated "if you don't take it and take care of it immediately, if you don't take the initiative you're going to wind up making things so much worse down the road." Taking a leadership role at work was difficult at times and challenging if one was not internally motivated Student-B said "if I'm not motivated to work somewhere and no one else is motivated and they just put me down why do I want to help someone that s not going to help me?" Student-A commented how difficult it was to motivate a team, and described 182

PAGE 201

sort of trying to pull a team together and getting projects under way and stuff You know each one, it tries and tests you but you sort of just make it through and figure out what works best and learn from your mistakes so you don't do it next time, sort of learn from history. Motivate employees to achieve desired performance. For several students work experience taught them to vary their approach with different employees in order to motivate them. To Student-A it began with an understanding of the individual employee, and explained "you need to see what works and what makes everybody else tick and push them towards that to go get them going." To motivate others this student found that "finding what that person is, what their interest is and what their passion is and making whatever their job is to fit that so they keep their interest." Student-G explained similarly that "everybody is not motivated the same." For this student a good manager was one who motivated employees by reinforcing good work. Student-G explained "I just kind of like you know, to hear that I've done a good job." For this student it was more important to hear reinforcing comments than have gained financial rewards. "You know it's not so much about the financial rewards or anything like that. I just like to know that I've done a good job and that it's been noticed." The experience of having seen a successful manager motivate employees through positive reinforcement was very important to Student-G, as was further explained I've realized how important it is to identify how, you know what motivates everybody because it's different for everybody. Once you 183

PAGE 202

learn that you can kind of individualize your plan for motivating your employees. Two students described incentives at work that motivated employees. Student-4 said that when working as a manager I motivate with different techniques like contests for sales for servers. And you know highest per person average and I'll buy you dinner." When working on a fundraiser, Student-! described that "they had incentives if you're team was the largest raiser or whatever, but you know you had to find a way to motivate and inspire your teammates if you were captain or whatever." To this student, leading by example was important as was described ''leading by example I think is one of those great things when you go out and do it yourself and they see it can be done. You know when you're happy and positive about it it's easy for them to be the same way." Student-B commented similarly even though other people aren't motivating you, and you re doing a good job, sometimes your attitude and standards or work ethic, you know they kind of shed off you. Like oh he's working, let's go work. To another student motivating others was easiest when behavior was jovial in nature, as Student-Student-! explained "I'm a pretty happy person so it's, I think it kind of wears off and I like to have fun and people just, I guess follow that." Student-H learned a valuable lesson by not being nice at work and explained that "I' ve had to learn s ome hard lessons ... you know r sometimes have a little bit of a temper. In the kitchen it's real easy to go off and I've done that when r was in 184

PAGE 203

charge ... it was very un-motivating." For Student-D better communication was necessary to motivate employees, particularly at pre-shift meetings, as was described "we gathered all the employees together and like we had what s called a chat-In and like we have to just get them motivated to do the work that needs to be done for that day." Follow l e gal aspe cts operations. Several students observed activities at work that enforced legal aspects of hospitality management. Student-B said you ve got to follow the rules and that s basically it. You've got to follow the rules otherwise you're done." Student-C described security procedures that prevented employee stealing, as was described "we have cameras. We always have to document when you're around a cash register if you were going to request more money for your drawer you had to document and you had to have it signed." In this instance, security procedures prevented stealing, because the computer shows it and then we have to check everything to make sure everything is true to what we were doing that day to make sure that we're not stealing from the company and that we're maintaining performance. Other legal issues involved beverage controls and licensing or regulatory legal aspects of business As Student-H described akohol service and admitted "I'm pretty sure l 've served underage girls. I've had friends that have gotten busted in restaurant, they've got busted in big money, and you know its big money." When Student-4 worked as a manager of a catered event much was learned about l85

PAGE 204

licensing requirements, as was explained "doing all our licensing and stufflike that, I've learned a little bit there." Student-6 described government regulations that were learned having worked in the housing business, as was explained where I'm at now, you re governed very strictly by the Fair Housing Act. You know they, and the legal ramifications of the fact that I had them sign a 17 page contract that binds me to keep up my end of the bargain. For this student the corporate training was critical to how much was learned about legal contracts, explaining "they fly people in from all over the nation just to sit in these classes and go through the legal side of gaming. And they explain this is why the law is in place and this is how it applies and what you have to take care of." Follow hygiene and safety principles Several students commented on the need to enforce safe standards at work. To these students safety was not only important to the wellbeing of employees and customers; it was a requirement of company policies, state and federal regulations One student described having gained operational improvement when safety was enforced. Student-A said "that you sort of know the run down on what things are. You say this works, that doesn't work. You find the way that it does work, what makes the most efficient way of doing it and the safest way.'' This student also realized what happens when you didn't follow state regulations, and said Their previous manager came and put new doors in the bathrooms and didn t pull pern1its .. they didn't do anything so now it's the legal action of that with you know a deficiencies coming from health and safety and stuff. 186

PAGE 205

Student-C described safety as important when work was done on slippery floors you know I have to make sure you re wearing the right footwear. And things like footwear as well as you know if you were working with machinery, like if you re working with the lifts the different precautions you have to take Student-C further described that there were "regulatory requirements" and "certifications you need.'' There were additional requirements for handling cash deposits, "if you're working like when l was carrying like $5,000 on the floor from the ... middle of the store ... so l just had to make sure I had the security guard with me sol would be carrying around a lot of money. Other regulations that were described by Student-A dealt with federal regulations in a nursing home as was said "with the nursing home and hospitals being, when we were Medicare and medical facilities you know you had to go through the state and federal health and safety checks every year, as well as fire." To several students work experience required following hygiene principles. The requirements varied by the work type and sometimes were not as well enforced as they were in the classroom. These experiences provided opportunities for students to reflect on what should have occurred in the workplace. Student-A said the previous management just had health violations left and right you know Sanitation it's just, it s an interesting case study of and in itself of watching things going on This student continued to observe the workplace and noticed things wrong and understood the difficulty of management choices as was described you 187

PAGE 206

know you sort of, you know between the operational point of view and the, and the sanitation safety point of view there's sort of, you ve got to combine the two together." Student-S said that most of their competency regarding personal hygiene was gained from work experience and said that "if you're not shaven when you come I've been not shaven, not clean shaven when 1 come to work sometimes and they're, you totally will get the one dollar razor from the front desk and go shave." To this student the workplace was different than class. The classroom was where you learned what to do at work, as was described "you're taking a class to learn you know, to take it out there in the real world." Student-S learned that "if I see someone mopping and they don't put the caution sigh out, slippery when wet, I put it down. The student also learned about washing your hands, I've learned a lot about just food safety and food handling." Off-campus Domain Summary For the off-campus domain both programs had support services for students, but exercised limited control over off-campus experience. TC provided off-campus housing support and assembled listing of internships. For CC however the internship was not an optional experience, it was a required part of the major. Career services coordinated specific jobs for students and outlined the tasks that would be done at work. The career office also conducted site visits and monitored student progress. However despite the required internship when students were 188

PAGE 207

enrolled in school, a higher percentage ofTC students worked (M= 91) compared to CC (M = 78). In the off-campus domain, family and friends had an influence on HM competency. Some students related family experiences as assisting their development of appearance and poise through spiritual services and family social events. Others grew up in family businesses and learned much about hospitality operations from their parents and grandparents There also appeared to be an understanding of spirituality, ethics, and respect for others that was developed prior to college. When students were involved in volunteer and spiritual activities they gained self awareness and appreciation for diverse populations. One student that worked for an AIDS charity seemed to have instilled a life-long commitment for volunteerism. Volunteer organizations also provided students with the opportunity to work with varied persons from different backgrounds, which influenced their ability to work with diverse students. In the off-campus domain, student responses centered primarily on volunteer and work experience. Of the experiences off-campus, work experience dominated references (N = 146) which was higher than any pedagogy or activity in the other college experience domains. The responses from students were organized by their contribution to developing the II HM competencies. For competencies that involved working with others job experience was critical to student development. 189

PAGE 208

Students gained valuable experience by working with customers in realistic settings and practicing customer service skills. For these students there seemed to be no substitute for experience in the real-world. Students also learned how to motivate and lead their peers, especially when assigned management roles while going to school. If a student did not work as a manager they tended to observe managers at work and model good performance and learn from bad examples as well. For the competencies that were based upon individual skills and not as dependent on interactions with employees, students developed competency through practice. If a student wrote emails or were involved in shift meetings they developed oral and written communication skills. Students also developed an understanding of legal aspects and ethics through observations at work and learning about regulatory requirements. Safety and sanitation competency was improved by work experience although standards and practices varied by operations Some 4star properties had strong standards for uniform, appearance and poise, whereas 2star hotels had less enforcement of standards Overall, students were able to observe the workplace and compare classroom theory to hospitality operations. They frequently noticed problems, but were not always in a position to manage solutions. 190

PAGE 209

CHAPTER 6 DISSCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Overview of the Discussion Student engagement in the HM college experience has been demonstrated in this dissertation as a complex ecology consisting of three domains ; including the classroom, campus and off-campus The conceptual framework presented in Chapter 1 identified student engagement literature that discovered greater academic achievement for students that were engaged in educationally purposeful activities both in and out of the classroom. To analyze the college experience, 11 competencies presented by Christou, (2002) were used as a measure for student competency. A review of the related literature determined that no previous studies in student engagement highlighted HM. There was however strong evidence that HM programs contained student engagement pedagogy activities and experiences that occurred both in and out of the classroom. The intent therefore was to measure the level of student selfreported competency in HM and the amount of contribution of the college experience domains. The discussion in this chapter is organized by the research questions below. I. How do four-year public and private colleges differ in student perceptions of ho s pitality management competency? 191

PAGE 210

2 What is the relationship between hospitality management student perceptions of engagement to self-reported gains in practical competence in hospitaliry management at a four-year public and a private college? 3. How do hospitality management student perceptions of classroom engagement pedagogy differ between a four-year public and a private college? 4. How do hospitality management student perceptions of campus engagement activities differ between a four-year public and a private college? 5. How do hospitality management student perceptions of off-campus engagement experiences differ between a four-year public and a private college? The first two research questions involved quantitative analysis The analysis was successful in identifying significant differences between programs, but lacked a student voice regarding how and why the types of pedagogy, activities and experiences in the college experience contributed to HM competency. The final three questions included a triangulation of data that assisted in explaining the college experience. Therefore when significant differences were noted from the first two questions, this chapter will discuss the qualitative analysis in an effort to explain the statistical results. Reliability of the I l-item Scale and the College Experience Before conducting the statistical analysis it was necessary to analyze the internal consistency of the 11 HM competencies forming a reliable scale. The items were developed as a point of reference to those competencies most desired in entry 192

PAGE 211

level HM managers. There were no previous studies that measured if the II HM competencies formed a reliable scale. The results indicated that on three indices the competencies were related in a linear manner with good internal consistency. This was important to the analysis in question one and was an indication of the reliability of the 11 item scale. The reliability of the 11 item scale also enhanced the reliability of the college experience contribution to competency discussed in question two. The college experience was proposed as a construct composed of three domains, classroom, campus, and off-campus. The reliability of the domains ability to explain differences between programs required PC A. The analysis determined how well the three domains explained differences between programs both as individual domains and as a whole. The results from the PCA indicated that a total of 45.6% of the variance was explained by the three domains of the college experience. The results were important, because the three domains formed a reliable measure for describing the college experience and how engagement in those domains was related to competency. Although 45.6% is less than half accurate in explaining the variance between programs the model would not have been significantly improved by adding additional factors, and no previous studies have proposed how the college experience was explained and how engagement in multiple domains is related to competency. The results were similar to the adage of a glass being half full or half empty. In this case there was an explanation of less 193

PAGE 212

than half of the variance by the construct of the college experience. On a negative or half empty note there was more than half of the variance explained by other factors. Interestingly all 33 measures fell neatly into the three domains with no need to remove items to improve clarity It was expected that some of the items might have been outliers that needed to be removed to better explain the three domains Since all 33 items were contained in the results it improved the reliability that the construct of the three domains in the college experience was worthy of further analysis. Discussion of Question #I The analysis of frequencies determined the mean scores of student reported competency by program. Figure 4.1 displayed the results graphically whereas Table 4-l reported the actual means The regression analysis determined that when all 11 competencies were combined in a scale there was no significant difference between programs. A visual inspection of Figure 4-l confirmed that the level of HM competency appeared similar in both schools. However, when follow-up ANOVA s were conducted the competency of possessing leadership qualities was higher at CC (M == 4.02) than TC (M == 3 86) and was significantly contributing to program Although the results indicated that both programs were similar it was important to note that CC was higher on 7 of the I l competencies. Therefore, it became important to analyze how the college experience domains differed between 194

PAGE 213

programs to determine why CC was higher on most of the competencies and particularly why CC students were reporting significantly higher competency in leadership qualities. To identify how programs differed in the college experience domains it became necessary to conduct further statistical analysis, keeping in mind the difference in the frequency analysis of competency addressed by question #1. MANO VA of the College Experience MANOVA was conducted to determine if there was a difference between programs on a linear combination of student reported competency contribution from the college experience. The frequency analysis shown graphically in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 indicated that in both programs the classroom and off-campus domains dominated the contribution to student competency. Further analysis of the means of the two programs was required to identify if there were any significant differences between programs. When the 11 competencies were combined in a scale no significant difference between programs was found which indicated that the programs did not significantly differ in the level of contribution from the college experience contributing to competency. The results further indicated that the combination of the three domains was not different; however it may have been possible for individual domains to have differed between programs. The lack of significant difference between programs meant that despite institutional investment in the college experience as a whole, when it came to developing HM Competency it did not matter where these students went to school. 195

PAGE 214

With no significant difference reported in HM competency between programs; it appeared that students would become competent in HM despite where a student went to school. Considering the intense effort and pride that went into creating an engaging environment for these students the results created a mixed blessing for educators in these programs because for these students, it mattered not where they went to school. Further analysis of the three domains was required to determine how students reported gaining competency from the three domains and to see if schools differed in any of those domains. MANOVA of the Cla s sroom Domain MANOVA was conducted to determine if the classroom domain differed between programs in their level of contribution to student reported HM competency When the mean competency scores reported in Table 4.3 were analyzed for their level of contribution from the classroom domain a significant difference was found between programs. Table 4 4 reported the four competencies that contributed to the program difference. Examination of the coefficients (Table 4-5) indicated that for the competency related to developing professional appearance and poi s e contributed most to program difference CC had higher mean scores (M= 2 33) than TC (M=2. l7) The next highest contribution in program difference came from classroom pedagogy that de v eloped competency in legal aspects of hospitality operations 196

PAGE 215

where CC had a higher score (M = 2.57) compared to TC (M = 2.42). For student competency in hygiene and safety practices, CC was higher (M = 2.57) compared to TC. Finally, competency related to handling guest problems with sensitivity and care was also higher at CC ( M = 2.24) compared to TC (M = 2.11 ). For each of these competencies CC had higher mean scores which indicated that the pedagogy employed at CC contributed more to the 11 HM competencies than TC. Further analysis of the specific pedagogics in the classroom domain occurred in Question #3, which is discussed later in this chapter. It should be noted that the pedagogy at CC was significantly different than TC and contributed more to student competency. Although the statistical analysis determined that a difference existed the results should not be overstated because when the college experience as a whole was combined there was no significant difference between schools. Analysis of the remaining two domains was necessary to determine other differences in the college expenence. MANOVA ofthe Campus Domain MANOVA was conducted to assess ifthere were differences between programs on student reported competency gained from campus activities (Table 4.6). Results indicate that there was no significant difference between programs. Follow-up ANOV As presented in Table 4.7 indicate that for the campus domain developing professional appearance and poise, CC (M = 2.06) had significantly 197

PAGE 216

higher mean scores than TC (M = 1.89). For leadership competency from campus activities, CC was once again higher (M= 2.01) than TC, (M= 1.90). Although a significant difference was not found between programs when the 11 HM competencies were combined in a scale, a ditierence was found in managing guest problems and identifying operational problems. For both competencies CC had higher mean scores which indicated that the campus domain was contributing more to student reported competency at CC than TC. Thus far in the analysis both the classroom and campus domains were contributing more to student competency at CC. These two domains were controllable by the programs because the administrators and educators planned engagement pedagogy and activities in these domains. For CC students both domains represented a more engaging environment and were contributing more to competency. Further analysis was necessary to determine how the college experience as a whole contributed to competency and differed between schools. MANOVA ofthe Qff-campus Domain MANOY A was conducted to assess if there were differences between programs in the level of contribution from off-campus experiences for the 11 hospitality competencies (Table 4.8). No significant difference was found between the programs. However, follow-up ANOY As indicated that off-campus activities had two competencies that were significantly different between programs. When students learned about how to handle guest problems with sensitivity and care, CC 198

PAGE 217

students reported significantly better competency (A1 = 2.66) than TC (M = 2.54). Student ability to identify operational problems was also higher at CC (M = 2.39) than TC (M = 2.27). In the off-campus domain, the results of the MANOV A and follow-up ANOV As indicated that once again CC was higher in not only the level of student reported competency but in the contribution from the oil-campus domain. Interestingly, the off-campus domain experiences may not have been as controllable by the programs because students had varied hving conditions families, friends spiritual activities and work experiences. The level of control in these often private and personal areas of life may not have been controllable by programs. Program Di.f(erence in the College Experience The results of the MANOV As on student competency and the college experience indicated that it did not matter to these students where they went to school. It appeared that all students would gain HM competency but in different ways The results were consistent Cheng and Chen, (2008) who suggested that institutions possess a broad range of assets to engage the student both in and out of the classroom. The importance of identifying and discussing the implications of program difference was not purposed by determining which program was better. Rather, by analyzing differences the results indicated what specific pedagogy 199

PAGE 218

activities and experiences were related to student competency. Value was gained by knowing what worked for these students, not what program was better. Both of the programs were successful in creating a college experience that contributed to HM competency. When the three domains were combined as a college experience there was no significant difference between schools. However, when analyzed separately the classroom domain was significantly different between programs. The campus and off-campus domains were not significantly different between programs. When follow-up ANOVAs were analyzed, CC had higher mean scores in student reported competency for every variable that contributed to program difference Furthermore, when MANOV As were conducted, CC had a higher level of contribution than TC for each of the three domains. The results indicated that according to these students CC had a more engaging college experience than TC, particularly in the classroom domain. Although it appeared that there was no overall significant difference between student reported competencies in the two programs, it became necessary to determine what the relationship was between the college experience domains and student competency which was addressed through the analysis of Question #2. Discussion of Question # 2 The results from the analysis in Question # l indicated that for HM competency it did not matter where a student went to school. However for the individual domains the classroom was significantly different between programs 200

PAGE 219

Hierarchal Multiple Linear Regression was necessary to analyze each of the 11 competencies and their underlying construct of contribution from classroom, campus, and off-campus domains The analysis reported the level of prediction that participation in each of the three domains had on the 11 HM competencies. The regression analysis presented two models. The first model combined the 11 HM competencies in a scale to determine if they were significantly predicted by engagement in the college experience. The analysis further determined which of the domains significantly contributed to the prediction. In the second model a control for program type was added to determine if the prediction improved by program type. When the three domains of engagement were entered in the first model they significantly predicted competency. When program type was added in the second model the prediction was not significantly improved which indicated similar to the results of the analysis of Question # 1, it did not matter where a student went to school, but at what level were they engaged in the college experience. Although competency was significantly predicted by engagement in the college experience, the effect was small (Cohen, 1998). Since the statistical power was high significant differences were possible despite the small effect size. Although a small percentage of the variance (11 %) was explained by engagement in the college experience, the results were important because the problem statement in Chapter l argued that no literature had previously connected student engagement to HM competency. Recall that in the discussion of Question 201

PAGE 220

# 1 it was determined that where a student went to school was not important and the relationship of engagement in the college experience to competency was not yet known. The results of the regression analysis indicated that similar to the student engagement literature, students that were engaged in educationally purposeful activities would achieve more (Astin, 1993; Pascarella, et al. 1996, Zhao & Kuh, 2004; Bandura, 1986; 2000; Kress & Elias, 2006). However, the literature did not highlight HM programs nor did it relate student engagement to competency. The result of the regression analysis was an indication that student engagement in the college experience significantly contributed to student reported HM competency, which had not been shown in previous literature. The analysis continued and determined which of the 11 HM competencies were predicted by the college experience domains and whether or not schools differed. Table 4.4 presented a summary ofthe analysis. For each of the I l HM competencies, participation in the college experience domains significantly contributed toward the prediction. This indicated that when students were engaged in the college experience they would be more likely to have had higher self reported HM competency. The percentage of variance explained by engagement in the college experience ranged from a low of II% to a high of 34% with small and medium effect sizes. Although the effect sizes were not large, the combination of the predictions began to compound the evidence that student engagement in the college experience was crucial to student success. Furthermore, in the HM 202

PAGE 221

literature discussed in Chapter 2, not all included effect size. For those that did, none had more than a small effect. When program type was added to the equation none of the II competencies were better predicted by program type, which was consistent with the results from the analysis of Question# l where program type did not matter When the domains in the college experience were analyzed, participation in the classroom significantly contributed to l 0 of the 11 competencies except managing guest problems with sensitivity and care. The off-campus domain significantly contributed to the prediction of all of the 11 HM competencies. In contrast, participation in the campus domain contributed to the prediction of four competencies, developing customer relations, possessing leadership qualities, motivating employees for performance, and following legal responsibilities. The results of the analysis of the college experience domains were consistent with the MANOV A results where the most significant domains were the classroom and off-campus. However it was important to analyze which of the competencies were best predicted by engagement and from which domain. The combination of the results from both questions indicated that in terms of student reported HM competency it did not matter where a student went to school, but how they went to school. In both programs, engagement in the college experience significantly contributed to HM competency For these students their success was 203

PAGE 222

better predicted by engagement in the college experience as a whole particularly the classroom and off-campus domains and to a lesser degree the campus domain. Discussion of Question #3 Earlier in this chapter it was reported that the first two research questions presented the significant differences between programs in HM competency and the level of contribution and prediction from the construct of the college experience. Questions #3-5 involved qualitative analysis that explained how and why the programs differed. Therefore in the sections that follow, the discussion was framed upon the significant differences identified in the analysis of questions #1 and #2. The Classroom Domain Explained The results of the analysis for Question #1 indicated that when it came to the competencies as a whole the programs did not significantly differ. However, the frequency report identified that CC was higher than TC in 7 of the ll competencies. Furthermore, the competency of possessing leadership qualities was significantly contributing to program difference. When the analysis continued for Question # 2, the results indicated that the college experience composed ofthree domains did not significantly contribute to program difference However the classroom domain was the only domain that was significantly different between programs. Table 4-4 reported the four competencies contributed to the program difference, in order of contribution; de v eloping professional appearance and poise legal aspects of hospitality operations, hygiene 204

PAGE 223

and safety practices, and handling guest problems with sensitivity and care. For each of these competencies CC had higher mean scores which indicated that the pedagogy employed at CC contributed more to student reported competency than TC. Thus, in the discussion below it is important to report differences between programs in the contribution of five competencies and explain how and why CC may have provided a classroom domain that contributed more to these competencies. In the sections that follow the three methods of data are discussed to identify how and why programs differed in the classroom domain. Colleg e Catalog Program D esc riptions The description statements r e ported in Chapter 5 described both programs as predominantly teaching institutions However the requirements for professional development, service, and advising were higher for faculty at TC, which indicated that when it came to available time to be spent teaching, CC faculty had more time to engage with students in their courses. The classroom domain at TC had a higher teacher to student ratios with 62.4 per full-time teacher compared to 43.5 at CC Furthermore faculty at TC taught four classes per term, twice annually, compared to two courses per trimester at CC, which meant that faculty at CC and students were able to concentrate on less courses per trimester which may have not only improved student competency but increased the time faculty spent on their courses. The indices of teacher to student ratios and teaching load for faculty clearly indicated that workload was less for faculty at CC. Whether or not faculty eng a ged 205

PAGE 224

with students more with the extra time was not clear. Furthermore, there was no supporting evidence from student interviews that the faculty workload deterred student progress. The tangible assets of classroom facilities at CC were described in the catalogs as superior to TC. There were several culinary labs by discipline, a working restaurant banquet facilities, mixology laboratory and purchasing/receiving facilities. These labs did not exist at TC (other than a single culinary lab) which indicated that CC had the ability to provide experiential learning and active learning in a more engaging way. Although TC lacked these facilities the faculty planned for off-campus tours and skill practice in other settings. For the competencies that were enhanced by hands-on skill practice such as hygiene and safety practices and handling customer problems, the mock restaurant and culinary laboratories at CC offered more opportunity to reinforce these competencies. Course Requirements The analysis of core course requirements reported in Table 5-l indicated that the operational courses in hotel management at the two programs were similar. However for food and beverage, events, and nutrition/dietetics CC had higher percentages of course requirements for these concentrations. When it came to competencies rooted in hospitality operations such as hygiene and safety managing guest problems, customer relations, and especially leadership and motivation of 206

PAGE 225

employees the coursework requirements at CC where higher for the topics related to these competencies Furthermore business and management courses were required more for HM majors at CC where they had more operations and management courses The combination of the coursework requirement differences at CC may have contributed to student competency in HM operations and leadership competency. The culinary labs and mock restaurants mentioned above were used in courses to provide realistic training to students. Table H.l identified that CC had two more courses in hotel/restaurant operations and a customer service course that TC did not have. These courses used the culinary labs and restaurant at CC. Furthermore, food production courses identified in Table H.2 were dramatically less for TC with six semester hours compared to 30 trimester hours at CC There was also a food and beverage operations course at CC that TC did not have. The combination of these course requirement differences indicated that CC had much more coursework in hospitality operations. ln these classes the most dramatic difference was the increase of foods courses where professional uniform, appearance, and hygiene skills were reinforced, both ofwhich had significantly higher competency at CC. For events management students the course requirements listed in Table H.3 indicated that CC had a higher percentage of cours e requirements (29.4 % ) than TC (17 5 %). There were several courses at CC that TC did not require such as a food 207

PAGE 226

and beverage operations course, additional hours of communications / media classes, and 13.5 credit hours of events management courses. The combination of the additional course requirements and the foods classes further emphasized the difference between programs particularly in appearance and poise and hygiene which was reinforced in food lab and service courses For Nutrition students Table H.4 identified course requirements that were higher for foods courses at CC than TC. CC had very high requirements in food production courses ( 60) compared to TC (1 0). For these students, hygiene uniform standards customer service and legal aspects were reinforced in these classes. In all concentrations CC required an internship for 13. 5 credits whereas TC had an optional three credit internship as an elective course. The internship was described in the catalog as coordinated by the school to ensure program objective reinforcement on the job. The increased emphasis on work experience for CC students indicated that they had more operational requirements to work while going to school. The higher amount of internship credit requirements may have contributed to student competency in several ways At work students may have learned more about how to handle guest problems and maintain customer relations. Furthermore they may have had opportunities to observe and practice leadership and motivational skills. Since work often requires hygiene standards students may have been more familiar with hygiene safety and legal aspects issues in hospitality all of which were significantly higher amongst CC students. 208

PAGE 227

Student Interviews The final data that completed the triangulation of the classroom domain were the student interviews. Students were asked to describe the experiences in college that most contributed to their competency. When the classroom domain was mentioned by students both programs employed pedagogy that students valued. For CC students, case study was frequently referred to as an effective means to understand hospitality operations. No TC students mentioned case study. Student-G described discussing potential customer problems in a customer service class that "was devoted to handling customer problems and difficulties that may arise. This same course was identified earlier as not required at TC. When case study was used to understand legal aspects of hospitality, Student-A explained that in class "it gives you an ideal of you know what may have more the cause and effects of, of you know breaking the law or having an employee break the law As s ignments. Both programs employed assignment pedagogy; however the responses were dominated by CC (See Table 5.2). Student-A stated that "they do many projects, including letters and portfolios to performance to resumes Students often referred to group assignments, where competency in motivating others and demonstrating leadership were employed Student-B described the importance of working in groups, and said "a big topic or goal of the class was to be able to work in teams, I mean because you're going to get that in the real world anyways." Professional appearance and poise was also enforced during 209

PAGE 228

presentations, as Student-B commented ''for every single one I or my group and other groups have all dressed professionally. It' s almost just like it's like a norm for a presentation." These presentations appeared quite pervasive at CC as Student-B continued, "about six presentations in two months and for four classes." Cas e study and discussion. In addition to case study a similar pedagogy was debates and discussion Although these likely occurred at TC, no students responded regarding this pedagogy contributing to their competency For Student-E at CC having group discussions as well as class discussions really helps us understand sort of how to deal with those problems as they arise." For this student, understanding guest problems and maintaining customer relations wa s better understood through scenarios discussed in class. Student-D commented similarly about a class discussion and said ' she just like tells us about problems that she' s come across and other people that she's talked too, other restaurants and how they solved their problems." It was clear to the students at CC that discussions gives you know multiple, multiple abilities to handle, depending on what situation was to arise," as Student-A said. Legal aspects of human resources were also understood through discussion, as Student-C said they "just finished talking about discrimination laws and how you have to be careful in your hiring process and stuff that you should take for hiring." Curiously, although leadership competency was more reinforced by the classroom at CC, apparently for Student-C the discussions 210

PAGE 229

were "like the book definition of leadership," but according to this student "you don't really learn leadership until you're put in that position." Experiential labs Some leadership and motivational skills were reinforced through experiential labs in both programs. However, the course requirements discussed earlier were higher for experiential food and customer service laboratories at CC During experiential labs such as the mock restaurant at CC, students practice leadership by managing a restaurant for a day, as Student-G described "we all put on like a restaurant for a day." Student-2 described how student leaders organized the culinary lab, and said "one group is the chef group and they're the ones that walk around with a clipboard ... So that's definitely a leadership opportunity in that class ' During experiential labs, particularly culinary courses students reported a strong emphasis on sanitation and hygiene standards, as Student-C reported, ''they are always make sure your knives are clean, make sure your hands are washed make sure you're wearing gloves." Similar emphasis was required for professional appearance and uniform standards as Student-H described "they 'll line you up and want it pressed and shined and everything." Hygiene was also enforced as this student further described "you know shaving and all the other things, no piercings. Some instructors are real stringent on that." Lectur e s Students at both schools varied in their opinion of lectures. Unlike experiential activities such as working in labs or engaging discussions lectures 211

PAGE 230

seemed depended on instructor experience Student-4 said lecture "drives me nuts" which to this student was "just from the book and verbatim lecture for three hours" lf the teacher had an appealing style the pedagogy of lecture was more influencing as Student-B said "the way they speak really influences my thought process of how something should be The level of related industry experience was also important as a CC student said of a law professor who "was an attorney for like his entire life ... he just like knew all the material." Offc ampus tours Personal appearance and poise was reinforced by off campus tours in both programs as student-S explained "they expect you to dress professional ... because you'll be talking to you know teachers and staff and guests. The off-campus tours also contributed to understanding current guest problems as Student-4 stated "we do a tour of a hotel and restaurant once a week and we meet with the owner or general manager and just talk about problems that they have and how they overcome them." P ee r interactions. Peer interactions were reported by students at both schools as contributing to their leadership and motivational competency. Student-S explained that working in a group shows you who who in that one certain group has the leadership potential and who doesn't." To this student "it's like if I don t motivate them who's going to motivate them?" Student-F commented about how to motivate others in group assignments, as was explained "classrooms give you; you know different examples of how you can moti v ate people. You can you know, give 212

PAGE 231

them incentives like bonuses ifyou meet his goal and stuff like that." Although student group work and interacting with peers provided leadership and motivation practice, they were also frustrating to students as Student-6 explained it is harder when you have to work when your homework is dependent on other students because now it's not just finding time in my schedule, it's me finding time with our collective schedules. Furthermore faculty had to monitor group progress because sometimes group members did not contribute or show up for meetings, as Student-6 said "I kind of appointed myself group leader by the fact that no one else was there to oppose it." Summary of Question #3, the Classroom Domain Question #3 addressed the description of the classroom domain, particularly as it related to five competencies that were significantly contributing to program difference. CC had higher mean scores for seven of 11 competencies five of which contributed to program difference; managing guest problems developing customer relations possessing leadership qualities, motivating employees for performance and following legal responsibilities. The discussion of the classroom domain was framed by these five competencies as to how and why competency was developed and differed between programs. The first combination of three forms of data explained the classroom domain ; catalog descriptions, course requirements, and student interviews. Although both programs were described as predominantly teaching institutions the faculty workload at TC was higher requiring more courses taught at a time and 213

PAGE 232

throughout the year. Furthermore, full-time teacher to student ratio was higher at TC and there where additional requirements for professional development, advising, and service all of which may have limited time to engage with students. The teaching at CC was enhanced by high quality labs that provided experiential learning opportunities such as customer service and a mock restaurant. The course requirements were dramatically different between programs with CC requiring more operational coursework in multiple concentrations, particularly in food and beverage where experiential learning occurred in labs. Those labs provided CC students with customer service training, leadership assignments, hygiene and safety, and interaction with customers. These activities were limited by the facilities at TC where faculty used campus wide or program sponsored events to provide experiential learning. Furthermore, all concentrations at CC required more coursework in business management and operations complimented by an internship where students had the opportunity to practice guest relation skills, leadership, motivation, and understand legal and hygiene aspects of hospitality management. Student interviews provided the final data that explained the classroom domain Students described effective classroom pedagogy in both programs; however CC had more responses related to case study, discussion and assignments. Although the case study and discussions were effective, they could have involved more critical thinking and problem solving skills by using pedagogy such as 214

PAGE 233

problem based learning described by previous HM literature (Duncan & Al Nakeeb 2006 ; LaLopa & McDonald 2006). Both case study and discu s sions were an effective means of presenting scenarios to students that were relevant to current hospitality guest problems where students were engaged in a more social way consistent with previous HM literature (Capstick & Fleming 2002; Dart, 2006) The social aspect of discussions, presentations, group assignments and experiential labs was consistent with the student engagement literature that reported students would achieve more when their learning was social and supported by collaboration with peers and faculty (Bandura, 1986, 2000). The different scenarios contributed toward competency in legal aspects of HM where students understood the importance of legal issues through awareness of real-world cases, particularly when faculty had relevant industry experience. Experiential learning in laboratories and other simulated environments were important to s tudents in both programs however CC students had much more credit hour requirements in experiential labs In these courses s tudents practiced appearance uniform, hygiene and safety skills and had opportunities to lead other students in assigned work The pedagog y in learning laboratories fostered frequent interactions with peers and faculty consi s tent with student engagement literature that when student s collaborate they achie v e more (Kuh Hayek Carini Ouimet Gonyea & Kennedy 2001 ; Kuh, 2003 2005 ; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).When mock restaurants were emplo yed at CC students got to work with actual customers and 215

PAGE 234

understand restaurant operations in a realistic environment. Since CC had more course requirements in experiential labs and possessed more tangible assets for learning in an experiential way. the relationship of experiential labs to student success at CC became clear. When CC required more courses, hired experienced faculty and gave them time to engage with students. HM competency improved. Students in both programs valued experiential learning when visiting hospitality businesses off-campus When faculty provided tours students appreciated learning about current problems going on in the industry. Furthermore, they developed professional appearance and poise as both programs required professional appearance standards. Assignments and group work dominated the classroom pedagogy in both programs. Working in groups provided students opportunities to practice leadership and motivational skills. Group work was a frequent pedagogy, but was sometimes frustrating to students to manage work schedules and communicating with team members, similar to Kline, et al. (2004). However, students recognized the importance of working with different people and valued group assignment pedagogy especially if faculty helped to monitor group progress. The classroom domain in both programs was a dynamic and active environment where faculty employed a variety of pedagogy to enhance student competency. At CC, they were blessed with excellent tangible assets in their high quality labs. CC faculty had the intangible asset of more time to teach with fewer 216

PAGE 235

pressures on research, service, and advising When in the classroom, they engaged actively with students in discussion and case studies that was not as prevalent at TC. With the combination of excellent facilities, higher course requirements in operations, and engaging pedagogy, CC created a classroom culture that was uniquely more engaging than TC which was related in a significant way to student competency. Discussion of Question #4 From the analysis of Question #1, the results of the MAN OVA indicated that there was no significant difference between programs for student reported competency from campus domain. Furthermore, the mean scores reported in Table 4.6 identified that the campus domain contributed the least of the three domains in the college experience to HM competency However, when follow-up ANOVAs were conducted for the competency of developing professional appearance and poise, CC (M = 2.06) had significantly higher mean scores than TC (M = 1.89). Furthermore, when it came to developing leadership competency from campus activities, CC was once again significantly higher UH = 2.01) than TC (M = 1.90). Therefore for these two variables, students reported that the campus domain at CC had a more engaging environment for students than TC. Both of these competencies were experiential in nature as they dealt with interactions with people and were enhanced by leadership opportunities on campus. 217

PAGE 236

The program descriptions and campus descriptions identified that CC had more participation in clubs, activities, and had campus policies for professional appearance which may have explained the higher contribution toward competency for CC students in the campus domain Although not significantly different, frequency reports presented in Table 4-6 indicated that for I 0 of the 11 competencies (excluding written and oral communication) TC had higher mean scores. The higher written and oral communication scores at TC also may have been explained by campus services in writing and tutoring that were available both online and by appointment. The increased student service assistance may have contributed to this difference despite efforts at CC to implement writing across the curriculum program and writing center The results from the analysis of Question #2 identified that when separated by domains, the campus domain contributed the least of the three domains where four of the 11 HM competencies were better predicted when students engaged in campus activities. Although the strength of predicting student reported HM competency was lowest for the campus domain the results were consistent with the student engagement literature that found that higher levels of participation in student activities were related to student success on multiple levels (Astin, 1993; Chickering, 2006; Pascarella & T erenzini, 1991 ) However those studi e s did not analyze HM per se. The results were important, because it was the first indication that HM competency was related to engagement in campus activities. 218

PAGE 237

The statistical results identified differences between programs, but how and why these differences occurred, required qualitative analysis. The analysis was critical for the two competencies in the campus domain where programs differed; developing appearance and poise, and leadership qualities. Although the MANOV A identified no significant program difference four competencies; customer relations leadership, motivation, and legal aspects were better predicted when the campus domain was added to the model. Therefore these competencies were important to frame discussion of the qualitative analysis. The analysis included a triangulation of three forms of data; catalog descriptions, frequency reports, and student interviews, discussed in the following sections. College Catalog Campus Descriptions The catalog descriptions for the campus domain indicated that CC provided on-campus housing. The close proximity of students that lived and learned together in one location created a culture that was unique. Furthermore, CC encouraged a culture of involvement in campus activities by encouraging participation in clubs. The three day orientation period for students was conducted at CC, whereas TC did not offer orientation. During that period students met with faculty, club leaders, and were integrated into the college experience. Frequency Reports a./Enga ge ment on Campus The encouraging culture at CC resulted in higher participation rates for campus activities. Table 5.4 identified that the two schools were not similar 219

PAGE 238

because CC had higher participation rates in campus activities. When analyzed as a percentage of participants in the study, CC had higher participation in athletics (lvf= 9.5) compared to TC (M= l.3). With on campus housing CC had higher resident students (M = 30) compared to TC (M = .02). For those activities that involved students in organized programs, the programs were similar in fraternity / sorority participation, but differed in club participation, where CC had higher participation rates (M = 48) compared to TC (lvf = 29). It appeared that the encouraging atmosphere described in the catalog at CC was confirmed by the higher levels of participation in campus activities at CC. Student Interviews Regarding the Campu s Domain The primary difference between programs in the campus domain was related to living on or off-campus When on campus, students tended to participate more in student clubs fraternities, athletics, and other activities which occurred for the students at CC. By living and learning together, the students at CC created a more engaged campus environment. For Student-G, who participated in sports leadership "fell on me kind of naturally, I kind of had to step up and learn how to lead a team and you know kind of learn how to, not manage people but learn how to get the best out of other people.'' For this student the leadership skills were directly related to athletic participation Student-C was involved in a s orority where leadership skills were developed by solving peer conflicts because "in the sorority 220

PAGE 239

group and just seeing the different conflicts that they have and seeing who comes up with the solution. Campus activities were also important to students at CC where several students referred to campus sponsored events that improved poise and appearance competency. Student-E explained that at CC, they were "encouraged obviously to go to those sessions related to career development and fashion shows. Student-F concurred and said ' you learn a lot about how to dress nice and look nice at this campus. Student-S said that for campus wide activities "we take a whole day off from class just to be professional and to you know speak with employers or whoever comes to our campus. I think it's great." Compulsory attendance at sponsored events and campus wide functions may not be as easy on larger campuses as no TC students commented on campus activities contributing to their competency development. There were also career sessions at CC described by Student-G where students had "business cards that you can get. . it s nice you know because then you have something to give to people you know. For this student it was beneficial because some ended up actually getting either internship or job opportunities. Since TC had no sponsored housing other than coordinated off-campus locations, it was not surprising to have no responses regarding campus housing. The close living conditions were not without their problems as Student-C said ''living in the dorms definitely has its problems and sometimes communication with 221

PAGE 240

an RA or the policies that the dorm life maintains." But living together taught Student-E about hygiene skills, as was explained "it's been impressed on us we're living with 150-200 students in a building so really, really being respectful of others space and property and obviously their hygiene and other policies." For Student-C who served as a resident advisor, the work improved competency in security and safety standards by "watching campus security take action for like they sent a notice of the things that they're changing and ifyou feel like you've been harassed or where you can go to keep safe." It was possible that hygiene and interaction skills were also gained by TC students who lived in apartments and other housing off-campus, but for the campus domain, housing was not applicable to those students. At TC they had campus and program sponsored events that were coordinated by students and faculty. These events were spoken of more frequently than CC students who participated in events through student clubs. For Student-S during these events at TC "you're always in a group, I mean volunteer activities and stuff, it's always group thing so you learn." For this student there was a feeling of representing the school and they had to maintain good ethics, because "it's like you, you're kind of supporting, (the schoof) ... and if you're not ethical you're kind of giving a bad rep." If the students worked closely with faculty the relationship became more mentoring in nature, as StudentI described "because 222

PAGE 241

they want to be your mentor they want to be your leader, they want to be a good example and you know they ve really helped." The majority of comments regarding the campus domain centered upon student club participation Students in both programs developed competency in leadership, communication, and personal appearance. For Student-S student clubs fostered leadership skills not attainable in class because "the classes kind of you know give that leadership kind of thing It is more like who has the strongest voice or something. It's never really leading Student-E commented similarly about a campus wide leadership program that sponsored classes that "focus on taking our leadership skills and applying them off-campus and in our industry and our community as well." Appearance and poise was developed by requirements for profe s sional dress, as Student-G described when you go down to those events we, everyone is in a suit and tie and everything." The events created engaging opportunities with community leaders that fostered professional poise, as Student-2 said "it's definitely forced me out in to the social scene of talking to people just something I'm not comfortable with but it's good because I'm learning new thing s When students had a leadership position in a club, they referred to the experi e nce as valuable in developing the ability to motivate and lead others but they s ometimes conflicted with work and school. Student-S was a club secretary and took like three fundraisers in to my own bands and actually created them for 223

PAGE 242

the group and they're still doing them this year, so. So I guess that was kind of relatively a leadership thing." Student-H was a historian for a club where competency in creating good relationships with others were developed, as was explained "dealing with those individuals can be trying at times, just because different opinions and what people want to do ... learning how to deal with, or calm people and deal with those types of situation." Student-G commented similarly about how maintaining relationships with diverse people was developed through club participation, as was said, "you really learn how to interact with different people and get along with people of different backgrounds." Working as an officer in a club was sometimes in conflict with school and work as Student-4 explained ''I was the treasurer . but I dropped it recently just because rm so busy with work and school." Summary of the Campu s Domain For the students at CC, living and learning together created a unique culture where students had higher rates of participation in fraternities, clubs, athletics and sponsored activities Since TC did not have housing on campus it was not surprising that participation in campus activities was less which left these students at a disadvantage for participating in valuable activities. During these activities student learned about leading and motivating others through athletics and working with different people through sororities. Because events were highly encouraged at CC and classes were sometimes cancelled so all s tudents could attend events, the 224

PAGE 243

participation at these events was higher and regarded as valuable to students particularly when the events were focused on them, such as career development, fashion shows or interactions with industry leaders. These events required a dress code and students received business cards which encouraged them to interact in a professional manner with appropriate appearance and poise. At TC there were some unique sponsored activities where students got to practice leadership skills and interact with the industry such as a charity fundraising activity and a wine tasting event. During these events students commented on how they felt that they were representing the school and dressed and behaved in a professional manner. When faculty were highly engaged with students they became more of mentors and less of a teacher-student relationship For both programs student club participation was important to student competency in leadership appearance. developing relations, and motivating others. Since more TC students worked while going to school, work requirements may have conflicted with student club membership which was indicated by higher participation rates at CC. However, students in both programs frequently referred to activities in student clubs as having contributed to their competency development. Student clubs provided opportunities to become an officer or lead an event or volunteer activity. The clubs frequently engaged with industry leaders and promoted student ability to communicate with others and make presentations. They leamed how to work with diverse students and resolve conflicts. Although the club 225

PAGE 244

participation sometimes conflicted with work and school, it was generally valuable to students particularly in leadership development. Discussion of Question # 5 Of the three domains in the college experience, the off-campus domain was more loosely controlled by the two programs, which was consistent with the concept diagram in Figure l.l. There was no significant difference between programs in the contribution of the off-campus domain to student reported competency with the exception of two competencies managing guest problems and identifying operational problems For both of these competencies CC had higher mean scores where an internship was required. It appeared that managing guest problems was not only the most important competency according to Christou (2002), but it was the most difficult to master for various reasons Managing guest problems was significantly contributing to program difference for the classroom domain at CC with higher mean scores Guest problems did not predict competency from the classroom domain but it did in the off-campus domain. The level of contribution from off-campus to predicting competency was higher for CC students where they had a required internship. Engagement in the campus domain did not predict competency in guest problems. Furthermore both guests and operational problems appeared very experiential in nature and although attempts were made on campus to simulate working conditions in a realistic way it was the off-campus domain that seemed to solidify student competency in dealing with customers. 226

PAGE 245

Curiously, while going to school, fewer of the respondents at CC worked (M = 78) compared to TC (M= 91) despite CC students reporting a higher level of contribution from the off-campus domain for lO of ll competencies (see Table 4.8). The difference may have been explained by CC coordinating internships during school breaks and summer sessions. Despite the tremendous effort that the programs made to provide classroom pedagogy and campus activities that improved student competency, the off-campus domain was the only domain that contributed to program difference of HM competency where CC had mostly higher mean scores. Since the program descriptions identified that CC had more control over internships and course requirements were higher, the attempts to control the off-campus domain may have resulted in the higher level of competency contribution for the students at CC. All II of the HM competencies were successfully predicted by engagement in the off campus domain for both schools. The results were consistent with Kozar, et al. (2005) who identified that work experience off-campus may assist development of HM competency because the work was related to classroom objectives. ln the classroom in contrast, where the programs had the greatest control, I 0 of the 11 competencies were predicted by engagement in the classroom. The one competency that was not, managing guest problems with sensitivity and care was a competency relating with customers. Thus, for the off-campus domain, it was engagement in the 227

PAGE 246

experiences off-campus that best predicted competency especially when working with guests. Although the HM programs might have provided assistance for off-campus experiences such as career services and housing assistance, student experiences were not controlled by the programs. CC however executed more control over the internship process because the career center identified companies to provide work experience opportunities and had specific work requirements for a company to be an approved internship location. Furthermore, the course requirements at CC were higher for internship in the classroom domain. For the otT-campus domain the strongest evidence of student competency in both programs came from work experience The experiences at work dominated student's comments more so than any pedagogy, activity or experience in any of the domains. Off-campus Experiencesfrom Student Interview s When students were asked about the pedagogy, activities or experiences in college that contributed to their HM competency, the most frequent responses of any domain was off-campus experiences. The frequency and intensity of student responses supports the quantitative analysis discussed earlier where all ll HM competencies were predicted by engagement off-campus. The results may cause some concern to program administrators and faculty because students reported higher levels of contribution from the off-campus domain than pedagogy and activities that occurred on campus. To focus the discussion, the responses were 228

PAGE 247

organized in two categories; non-work experience and work experience. For work experience the responses were organized in four categories; experiences related to maintaining customer and employee relations, HM professionalism, HM operations, and motivation and leadership. The discussions in the following sections were organized by the categories described above. Since experiences were common amongst students in both programs, program type was less important in the discussion. Non-Work Experiences At home and in their neighborhoods students spoke of watching TV, using the internet, and engaging with media and current events. By doing so Student-C was more aware of legal aspects of HM because "being a participant member in society ... and the different laws that they're posing out there ... I try to be socially aware." For several students having a strong family upbringing influenced values related to professionalism and relationships with others. For Student-3 "I sort of grew up knowing you know what to, how to dress for certain occasions and how to eat properly and such." For interpersonal relationships, growing up in a supportive family was important, as Student-F spoke of growing up "my parents told us like to get along with your siblings you know you've got to act this way. You've got to, you know be nice to everyone ... and that's pretty much what I do at work." When students were involved in spiritual and volunteer experiences, understanding of morality and ethics were reinforced, as Student-G said "having 229

PAGE 248

that background has kind of gives me an understanding of what is right and what is wrong Religious experiences also influenced professional appearance, as Student-F commented "you're always expected to look nice and on a certain level no ripped up blue jeans, t-shirts and stuff like that." Volunteering also developed emotional and spiritual values for students in the long-term as Student-H explained "it has helped me a lot I think ... I will really miss when I leave but I can start it somewhere else ." Work Experience Three HM competencies appeared to be similarly related which were categorized as customer and employee relations; managing guest problems with understanding and sensitivity developing positive customer relations, and achieving positive working relationships with employees. Customer and employee relations For the first category customer and employee relations, there were three competencies that were related to the skills that students gained when managing interactions between themselves customers and fellow employees. Of the categories work experience was the most critical for two reasons First the competencies identified by Christou (2002) were in rank order which indicated that managing guest problems was first and developing customer relations was second Managing employee relations was fifth which indicated that these three competencies were at or near the top of the important skills expected of entry level managers. Furthermore these competencies were 230

PAGE 249

social in nature and as the regression analysis indicated from the classroom domain managing guest problems did not significantly predict competency. It may have been possible that working with real customers was the best way these students improved their competency of working with people. Because as Student-G said "the more you work with them (customers) the better you get in kind of figuring out how to handle different types of people."' And Student-B who said "I feel I get more experience dealing with the guests out there in the real world." Students also reported learning about employee relations by modeling good managers as Student-6 described a manager as probably the best manager I ve ever had. She was concerned with us individuals as well as our work and career.'' StudentH also modeled a manager and said "I learned a lot about having to deal with customers and how to deal with staff then I have with anybody." For these students the lessons learned from work experience did not seem easily replicated in experiential labs or classroom discussion. HM professionalism. The category of HM professionalism was supported by engagement at work related to two competencies, professional appearance and poise, and communication skills both orally and in writing. For professional appearance and poise, the analysis of Question #4 indicated that CC not only had higher mean scores in contribution from campus, but the requirements for dress standards were highly enforced. Despite further efforts in the classroom and experiential labs at both schools for these students it was work experience that 231

PAGE 250

actually contributed more to their development. Such results should not dismay educators, as CC who extended greater effort to provide a campus and classroom culture that reinforced these standards because all of the effort including the required internship off-campus was part of the student college experience. The true lesson was not regret that students learned more from work than campus, but that programs enhanced HM competency by controlling off-campus work experiences more as CC did which had higher mean scores for competency development from the off-campus domain For the students who worked off-campus they developed professionalism competency in appearance and poise by adhering to uniform standards and looking good for customers, as Student-F explained I mean like anything you know you have a uniform you're expected to look a certain way when you're dealing with customers." For this student it was "work was probably the most beneficial currently for me The second aspect of HM professionalism was communicating orally and in writing which despite tremendous efforts in classroom pedagogy, campus services and writing across the curriculum programs students gained more competency for writing and oral communication skills from off-campus work experience. For Student-6 it was because at work there were real customers needing accurate contracts and if not done correctly within a month they 'll be back with something that was wrong The conditions at work seemed very realistic to Student-4 as well 232

PAGE 251

who said that when communicating between shifts, communication was "given verbally about what's going on in the restaurant, what happened and stuff like that." It appeared that there would have been repercussions if communication between shifts and managers was not effective as Student-4 described "I have to email them every night with numbers of course and kind of give a little spiel on what happened. So I've got to make sure that looks professional and proper." HM operations. The next group of competencies was related to HM operations which contained; identifying operational problems, professional ethics standards at work, legal responsibilities, and following hygiene and safety standards. These competencies were grouped together because they involved competencies related to understanding the work requirements of hospitality management as it related to HM operations, ethical, legal, and safety standards that make a HM operation a success. Although these students discussed HM operations in the classroom domain, it was working off-campus that was more realistic and gave them an understanding of how to organize a HM operation in the real world, as Student-6 said "I think just more the organizational piece in terms of problems in the restaurants, it's definitely something I've learned." Although engagement in the classroom significantly predicted competency in ethics, the campus did not. For these students, work experience seemed to have more direct results for poor ethical decisions which might not have seemed as realistic in classroom discussion. Student-B said "if you don't clock out they take it 233

PAGE 252

out of your time anyways and they'd tell you hey, you didn 't' clock out." To this student "if you keep not doing it, then you're stealing." The prediction of competency for legal aspects was different than ethics because all three domains predicted competency. However for these students. work experience seemed to provide a real awareness of the importance of ethics and the repercussions were instant as Student-S said "you ve got to follow the rules and that's basically it. You've got to follow the rules otherwise you're done At work, Student-6 gained experience working with government regulations that might not have been easily replicated in the classroom or campus domains, as was explained "where I'm at now, you're governed very strictly by the Fair Housing Act ... that binds me to keep up my end of the bargain." There were also regulations for sanitation and safety at work that further emphasized how work experience seemed to be more realistic to these students. Student-A learned about the importance of permits and said their previous manager came and put new doors in the bathroom and didn't pull permits ... so now it's the legal action of that \vith you know a deficiencies coming from health and safety and stuff." The work environment seemed to be the place where you put classroom learning into practice, as Student-B said "you're taking a class to learn you know to take it out there in the real world L e adership and motivation. The final category that emerged from work experience included competency related to motivating and leading other persons. 234

PAGE 253

These competencies were closely related because they are similar management skills. Although engagement in all three domains predicted competency for these variables, it was work-experience that provided a realistic setting where students could observe good and bad leadership styles and sometimes work as a manager themselves. When managers mentored students it was valued as Student-F said "he took me through the processes of like you know you can do this and this, but you have to have this first ... he brought it down to earth for me. For this student competency was developed by watching an effective manager motivate others, as was said he "basically showed me this is how you have to treat people to get what you want but it's not like a manipulation act." Student-5 learned how to take charge at work and said "you know it's either you're going to step up or you wait for that other person. So you know it's like either taking the first leap. Although the other domains may have provided leadership opportunities on campus or discussed theory in the classroom, for Student-A it was work experience where "you need to see what works and what makes everybody else tick and push them towards that to get them going It appeared more difficult to these students to replicate such experiences on campus. Summar y of the Off-campus Domain The off-campus domain was the most significantly contributing domain in the college experience to HM competency All of the ll competencies were 235

PAGE 254

successfully predicted by engagement off-campus. Although at first thought this may be shocking to educators that students were gaining more competency off campus than on, it was consistent with Kozar, et al. (2005) who identified that HM students were putting in practice the theories and principles of HM at work, while going to school. It seemed practical and logical to encourage students to work as their competency was reinforced by real world experiences. CC administrators seemed to have recognized the importance of work experience for several reasons. CC had higher course requirements for off-campus work and the career office coordinated internships, set expectations for work and conducted site visits. It should not be surprising that CC students had higher overall competency for seven of the 11 competencies proposed by Christou (2002) and that the level of contribution from the off-campus domain was higher despite having less students work while going to school. When students worked either during school or on breaks they reported gaining competency in two general areas, non-work and work experience. For non work experiences, students engaged with family friends, volunteer and spiritual activities. They remained current by watching media and gained valuable moral and ethical skills from family and spiritual activities. Furthermore. family and spiritual activities seemed to set a value system where students understood the importance of right and wrong, how to get along with others and maintain personal appearance and hygiene. 236

PAGE 255

The majority of student comments however, carne from work experience which was the most talked about experience in all three domains. The comments from students formed four general categories. The most crucial category was maintaining customer and employee relations These competencies were high on the scale of the 11 HM competencies, more difficult to simulate on campus, and more frequently identified as contributing to program difference. When students worked they learned from both good and bad managers and were sometimes mentored in how to be a successful manager. The second category was related to competencies that developed HM professionalism. For competencies related to appearance, poise, written, and oral communication scores CC was again higher for all of these competencies. Although CC had a more unique campus culture that reinforced these professional standards it was work experience that made the professionalism seem relevant and important in the real world. Students in both programs learned at work the importance of having a good appearance, adhering to uniform policies and communicating well with peers and managers between shifts. The third category was related to HM operations where students learned about HM operational problems ethics legal, sanitation, and safety requirements. These competencies were all oriented toward an understanding of the standards required in HM operations. Although engagement in the classroom domain predicted competency for these variables the campus domain only predicted legal 237

PAGE 256

aspects competency. It seemed that the classroom domain employed pedagogy related to understanding the theory of HM operations, but it was work-experience that became a real world learning environment. Students learned instantly the results of poor ethical and legal decisions involving clock management, uniforms, appearance, contracts, sanitation standards, and permit requirements. The students pointed out that ifyou didn't understand HM operations and the requirements you didn't keep your job. The final category involved leading and motivating others. Although engagement in all three domains predicted leadership and motivation competency, it was work experience that was realistic and provided opportunities to reflect upon classroom theory and what to do and not to do when they had management duties. Compared to other competencies, learning how to motivate and lead required a chance to do so at work and close mentorship by managers. With this in mind, it would likely be more important for institutions to control the tasks and opportunities students had while on internship. CC had much more control over the internships which may have been an indication of higher competency reported from the off-campus domain for these variables. For these students, they learned what made others tick and how motivating others could make them a success at work. They tended to learn from both good and bad examples of managers at work. When given the chance to lead themselves, they had to step up and take charge. For some they learned specific skills in how to 238

PAGE 257

motivate others for success and learned most when mentored by a caring manager. Not all students got leadership chances at work and some had to work their way up the ranks to gain management experience. In comparison to the campus domain where leadership was practiced in clubs and activities on campus, it appeared that for the off-campus domain actual leadership practice was the most difficult to obtain. Summary of th e College Experience The first two research questions involved quantitative analysis that indicated the way the college experience domains demonstrated contribution to student reported HM competency. When combined the three domains in the college experience predicted competency, however the intensity of domain contribution varied amongst domains. The classroom domain predicted l 0 of the II HM competencies, while campus predicted four of II competencies, presented by Christou (2002). The off-campus domain was the most significant contributing domain with all Il competencies predicted by engaging in off-campus experiences. Therefore these domains were a reliable measure of predicting competency and when combined the college experience as a whole was related to student reported competency The results confirmed student engagement literature from other settings that determined that engagement in educationally purposeful activities on campus was related to student achievement (Astin I993 ; Pascarella et 239

PAGE 258

al. 1996; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). How and why engagement in the college experience domains were related to competency required qualitative analysis. The HM College Experience Model The third, fourth, and fifth research questions were framed around an analysis of three forms of data; college catalog department chair descriptions, and student interviews. The results provided a description of the college experience domains; classroom campus, and off-campus. The description of the college experience was proposed in Chapter l as a dynamic construct that was composed of three domains employing varied pedagogy, activities, and experiences that contributed toward HM competency. Table 5.9 reported the summary of quantitative and qualitative evidence from the triangulation of data. Results indicated that when students were asked what domains in the college experience contributed most to their competency responses did not include all of the proposed pedagogy, activities, and experiences from Table 1.2. By triangulating the student responses with the other forms of data, Table 6.1 provides a summary of the pedagogy, activities, and experience in the college experience. Under each of the three domains, the results are in rank order of frequent and dynamic responses from students. For the work experience category in the off-campus domain. the responses were vast and therefore organized in four categories; customer/employee relations, HM professionalism, HM operations, and motivating and leading at work 240

PAGE 259

Table 6.1 Hospitality Management College Experience Model Classroom Campus interaction with peers experiential labs debates / discussions interactions with faculty classroom lectures assignments rea ding case study off-campus tours exams gu e st speakers online and media demonstrations student clubs ; govemmcnt campus activities interaction with peers interactions with peers interactions with faculty campus housing campus volunte e ring college / intramural athletics fraternity / sorority tutoring Off-campus *customer / employee r e lations *HM professionalism at work *working in HM op e rations *motivating and leading at work f a mily interactions spiritual activities volunteer work diverse coworkers spiritual activities ele ctronic medium Note. Derived from a triangulation of data; college catalogs, student survey responses, course requirements, department chair summaries, and student interview responses. *denotes experiences that occurred at work. The classroom domain. In the classroom domain Table 6.1 identifies several pedagogies that were removed from the proposed model; capstone courses, independent study, research projects, and senior research. Although the college catalog descriptions described some of these pedagogy or course activities, student responses did not identify them as contributing toward their competency. Four new pedagogy emerged; case study, assignments, guest speakers, and exams. The most contributing pedagogies in the classroom, collaborative learning that was social in nature dominated the responses from students, including; interaction with peers, experiential labs, debates, discussions, interactions with faculty, individual and group assignments, and case study. The results were similar to student engagement literature that indicated collaborating with peers and faculty in a social way was 241

PAGE 260

related to achievement (Bandura, 1986 2000; Kress & Elias 2006) The results did not demonstrate efforts to promote critical thinking that could have occurred with problem based learning (LaLopa & McDonald, 2002). Of the pedagogy employed in the classroom, those techniques that were social in nature, active, and engaged students with peers and faculty dominated the responses from students. When students worked on assignments in groups they developed not only an understanding of course material, but benefited from the interaction with peers and developed motivational and leadership skills. The quality of classroom laboratories and experienced faculty were important to these students particularly when they learned through experience in class and through sponsored events, whether in the classroom or during off-campus tours. Results were consistent with HM pedagogy literature that demonstrated engaging activities in and out of the classroom that were experiential in nature benefited students most (Downey & Deveau, 1988; Jacobs, et al. 200 l; Kiser & Partlow 1999; Kline, et al. 2004; Lefever & Wiliam, 1998; Titz & Wollen, 2002). Furthermore, class discussions, and particularly case study provided opportunities for students to develop competency in identifying operational problems, especially at CC where this pedagogy was common. Similar to the quantitative analysis that determined that the two programs differed, the triangulation of data in the classroom domain confirmed that CC had higher levels of coursework required in HM operations provided high quality 242

PAGE 261

experiential facilities, and allowed for faculty to have more time to teach. The combination of these factors and use of pedagogy such as case study and discussion that engaged the students in the classroom distinguished the classroom domain at CC as providing a more engaging environment for students. Students commented on small class sizes and the availability of instructor time and experienced faculty in contributing to their development. The campus domain In the campus domain CC had a specific advantage of being a small private school that housed their students on campus The environment created a unique culture where the program could orient the students to the college experience and encourage involvement in clubs and other campus activities. The results of first year integration programs and advising from faculty indicated higher participation rates in sororities athletics, clubs and valued mentorship from faculty. TC lacked the tangible assets of housing but gained much from program sponsored events and coordinated experiences off-campus. The descriptions of the campus activities including the classroom pedagogy and campus activities confirm the findings of Cheng and Chen (2008) who suggested that programs possess tangible and intangible assets that represent a body of knowledge that is worthy of sharing. The off-campus domain In the off-campus domain students that had a support network from family, friends and spiritual activities tended to value the otT-campus domain which contributed to their competency. Although some off-243

PAGE 262

campus experiences might not be able to be controlled or influenced by the HM program the work experience was loosely controlled CC had more control as the internship was required and more credits were earned off-campus They also had a career services office that coordinated the topics and manor of work done off campus. The results indicated that for students in both programs working while going to school or on breaks was the single most contributing variable to predicting student reported HM competency, similar to Kline et al. (2004) that suggested that off-campus experience could help or hinder classroom objectives Implications The combination of student engagement in the three domains of the college experience significantly predicts student reported HM competency. Although it is worrisome to educators to learn that off-campus experiences contributes more to HM competency than engagement on campus the results are tempered by the fact that programs did not significantly differ. It matters less where a student goes to school, but how they go to school. For the students in this study, those that are engaged in the college experience are more competent in HM. It seems that if a program is lacking tangible or intangible assets in one domain or another that students gain competency through other means. In the future, understanding the college experience and how engagement in the domains is related to HM competency is important to students, administrators, the HM indu s try and future 244

PAGE 263

researchers as these stakeholders strive to improve the competency of HM graduates. Implications for Students The student voice in this dissertation was clear and indicated great value in the college experience as a whole. For students the message was simple, it does not matter where you go to school, but how you go to school. The results were similar to previous student engagement literature that stated that if you involve yourself in college you will achieve more. For HM-students, this dissertation defined the college experience as a whole and included not only pedagogy that occurred in the class, but activities on campus and off campus. The most important of all domains was off-campus where vital social skills related to customer relations came from work experience. When on campus, involvement in a club was important better yet a leadership position in those clubs. If program choice was an option for the student, choosing a campus that has high quality experiential labs, campus housing and an encouraging campus climate was related to predicting competency. When students went to class, those that engaged with faculty and peers in a social way in assignments discussions, case study and presentations reported higher competency in HM. For students the answer was clear, get involved in the college experience. Implications for Program Administrators For those administrators that are involved in planning and directing classroom pedagogy campus activities and off-campus experiences, there is much 245

PAGE 264

to take from the student responses in this dissertation The students said they valued faculty with relevant industry experience that have time to teach and advise them throughout their college experience. For administrators this means hire the best qualified faculty that have a passion to teach and engage students in and out of the classroom It appeared important to give those faculty the time to teach and connect with students and reduce class size to promote interactive and social pedagogy such as case study debate, discussion, and writing across the curriculum. Although resources are a familiar constraint, students valued highly experiential labs rooted in hospitality operations that closely simulated industry standards. Allowances for culinary labs, mixology equipment, and mock restaurants were directly related to HM competency. Once faculty are hired, their career skills must be maintained so they are relevant to the industry and familiar with current trends. Allowing faculty to teach and mentor students will likely improve HM competency of graduates. The close relationship of faculty to students is vital in student clubs. If possible, housing on campus creates a living and learning culture that results in higher participation in clubs student government fraternities, athletics and other campus activities that is directly related to HM competency It is also vital to recognize that students will gain more from off-campus experiences than what occurs on campus. For this reason, executing some control over internships and work in the community and abroad is warranted. The level of 246

PAGE 265

career assistance is important because students that work in their field achieve higher competency especially for competencies that are difficult to replicate on campus such as developing customer and employee relations. implications for the Hlvf industry Although this dissertation involved student perceptions of HM competency which is highly important to students and administrators, the end result is these students will work in the HM industry. It is important to the HM industry to recognize that students reported gaining most of their competency from off-campus experiences, particularly from work experience. If the goal is for future students to work for the industry then perhaps the industry should engage students while they are in school. If industry leaders were connected with the school they could create relationships for off-campus tours guest speaking in classes work experience and internships, all of which were effective in contributing to HM competency for these students. During work experience and internship it is important for managers to avail themselves to students and serve as more than a boss but as a mentor. Student's value time with good managers and will model behaviors that are effective in managing HM operations. Industry leaders should be familiar with program and course objectives and design work experiences that mirror industry standards discussed in theory in the classroom and reinforced at work 247

PAGE 266

Implications for Researchers For researchers, this dissertation is important because it is the first connection of student engagement in the college experience to competency. Furthermore, there is a measure of reliability for the ll item scale presented by Christou (2002). The description of the college experience is more apparent by investigating not only reliable quantitative results from the survey, but triangulating of qualitative data from the same participants to propose a model of the HM college experience. Although the level of student engagement in the college experience as a whole, and the three domains is related to student competency, the level of contribution from pedagogy activities, and experiences within those domains is yet to be explored. For these students the message is compelling, the off-campus domain remains the least investigated part of the college experience yet it contributed most to their development. Within the off-campus domain it was work experience that students reported as contributing to their competency, however the level of control over such experience was not always controlled by HM programs. This study was limited by analyzing two programs which did not represent additional Carnegie classifications such as community colleges and graduate programs. Furthermore, there may have been a myriad of pedagogy, activities and experiences that explain the domains The students in this study were asked only of their most contributing experiences in the broad sense of HM, which may not reflect competency of individual majors. 248

PAGE 267

The reliance on student reported competency limited the analysis to student impressions of how competent they thought they were. Students may not have correctly estimated their own level of competency. Future research may ask students questions as to the frequency of experiences to determine connections between pedagogy, activities, and experiences in college and how they relate to HM competency. External measures and longitudinal studies regarding student competency may better analyze competency that does not rely on self assessment. Future research may want to focus on the most significant differences identified through the analysis, which indicated that of the three domains only the classroom differed between programs. The culture at CC was unique and indicated that certain pedagogy such as group assignments, discussion, debates and case study are worthy of investigation as to how such social and engaging activities relate to student competency. Student interviews confirmed that the pedagogy at CC was unique and created a very engaging environment. Therefore, researchers may question what types of pedagogy contribute most to student competency in the classroom domain 249

PAGE 268

APPENDIX A COMPARISON OF COMPETENCIES TN HM IN UK USA AND GREECE Table A. I Rank Comp etencies Mea n Christou & Eaton Baum Study: Tas Study: O rder Study: Rank & Rank & Rank & Mean Mean Mean (G r eece) (LKl (USA) Esse nti a l Competencies Manage g u est problem s wit h 4.87 I :4.89 I 4.8 1 I :4.80 understanding and sensit i vity 2 Develops po s iti ve customer r e l atio n s 4.76 3 : -l72 6 :4.55 5:4.60 3 Demonstrate s professional appea r a nce 4.73 2 : 4.83 5 :4.56 3:4.61 and poise 4 Communicates effective l y both 4. 7 0 9 : 4.52 3 : 4.61 3 :4.61 writt e n and o r ally 5 Strives to achieve po s itive working 4.66 4 : 4.63 4 4.57 6 : 4 .5 2 r elations hip s with employees 6 Identifie s oper at i o n a l problem s 4.63 8 :4.54 13:4. 24 I" 4.00 7 Maintain profes s ional and ethical 4.60 6 :4.58 9:4.40 2 : 4 .69 s tand ards in the work environme nt P ossesses needed leader ship qualitie s 4.59 5 :4.60 9:4.40 7:4.48 to ac hieve organizatio n a l objectives 9 Motivates empl oyees t o achi eve 4.57 7:4.58 8 : 4.52 8 : 4.44 desired perfonnance 1 0 l'ollows the l ega l r esponsibilities 4.54 II :4.50 7 : 4 .54 14:3.90 associated with h ote l operatio n s II Follows h yg iene and safe t y 4.50 13:4.38 2 :4.71 13: 3.99 regulations t o ensure compliance by organizat i on 250

PAGE 269

Table A. I (Cont.) Rank Competencies Mean Christo u & Baum Study: Tas Study: Order Ea ton Study: Rank & Mean Rank & Mean Rank & Mean (UK) (USA) (Greece) Competencies of Moderate Importance 1 2 Assis t s in the development and control of 4.45 10: 4.52 23 : 3.87 19: 3.75 dep a rtmental employee productivity 1 3 Effectively manages life-threatening 4.42 15:4.33 II : 4.37 II : 4.09 situat io n s s uch as fire bomb threat. serious iII ne ss, etc. 1 4 Follow s es t a blished personnel manageme nt 4.38 JQ: 4.11 14:4.26 9: 4.33 procedures in s upervision of employees I S M anages employee g rievance s effecti ve l y 4.33 16 : 4.33 17:4 .12 15: 3.8 7 1 6 Assists in establi s hin g organi za tional 4.3 I 12:4.42 22 : 3.92 21 : 3.67 objectives a nd their priorities 1 7 Delegates responsibility and authority t o 4.30 14:4.36 16:4.14 16: 3.84 personnel according to departmental objec tiv e(s) 1 8 Knows p e rsonnel policies which govem 4.27 1 8 : 4.20 19: 3.97 10: 4.15 sunervi sory activities 19 L past and current information to predict 4.21 17 : 4.24 12 :4.31 I 8: 3.75 future departmental revenues and expenses 20 Uses past and current information to predict 4.18 22 : 3.95 18 :4.06 23: 3.61 futu r e hotel reservations 2 I Appraises employee performance 4.14 24 3.78 27: 3.67 21 : 3.67 22 Anal yzes fac tor s that intluence the 4.11 21 :4.01 15 :4.19 20: 3.73 comrollability a nd le v el of profit s 22 Develops work tlow pattems to meet 4. 1 I 20: 4.06 24 : 3.79 24 : 3.5 7 s pcci fie operatio n a l objectives 24 Conduc t s a n info rm ative and va lid interview 4.05 25: 3.64 20 : 3 .9 5 26: 3.47 w ith pros p ective emplo yees 25 Uses front o ffice equipment ctlectivcly 3.92 28 : 3.60 30: 3.58 29: 3.31 2 6 Analyzes weekly, monthly a nd annual 3.83 23 : 3.89 20 : 3.95 25 : 3.49 financial a nd s t a tisti cal report s 26 Develops reliable revenue and expense 3.83 26: 3.6 4 25 : 3.57 34: 3.16 tracking sys tems 26 Prepares w ee kly. monthly and annual 3.83 31 : 3.4 7 28: 3.65 26 : 2.96 financial s tati s tical reports 29 Ass i s t s in operational and strategic planning 3.74 27 : 3.64 29 : 3.59 29: 3.31 30 Analyzes past a nd present business 3.65 30: 3.56 30: 3.5R 28: 3.39 infonnation to e ffectively predict ti.tturc marketing s tr a te gies 251

PAGE 270

Table A.l (Cont.) Rank Order 31 32 33 34 35 Competencies Assists in the development a nd maintenance of budgets for ea ch imponant element of the organization Assists in the devel o pment of a balanced progr a m of preventive secu rit y Assists in the development of an effectiv e energy-management program Pr o mote s a co-operative union manag eme nt r ela tionship Pr oc es ses hot e l arrivals and depanures Mean 3.5X 3.42 3.42 3.30 3.2 1 C hristou & Baum Study: Tas Study: Ea ton Study: Rank & Mean Rank & Mean Rank & Mean (UK) (USA) (Greece) 29: 3.57 26: 3.77 31 : 3.24 35: 3 .12 33 : 3.44 32: 3.19 36: 3.09 34 : 3.26 34: 3.03 32:3.41 35: 3.11 27 : 3.45 34: 3.25 36: 2.95 34: 3.05 36 lnspectsservic edhotelrooms 3.16 33:333 30:3.58 17:3.76 according to standard operating housekeeping procedures N01e. From "Rev isiting competencies for ho s pitalit y man age ment : Contemporary views of the s takeholder s," by E. C hri s t o n 2002, Journal of Hospital in: & Tourism Education. 14(1 ) p. 27. 252

PAGE 271

APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT For the following 11 questions, please MARK your level of competency for each question on a scale from low level to high level as shown and the level of contribution you gained from class work, school activities or off-campus expenences: 1. Ability to manage guest problems with understanding and sensitivity Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences I Low I Moderate I High I '--I _Lo_w_._l _M_o_de_r_at_e__.I_H_i-""g_h___, I Low Moderate I High D D D D D D D D D 2. Ability to develop positive customer relations Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences I Low I Moderate I High II Low I Moderate I High I Low Moderate High DDDDDD D D D 3. Demonstrate professional appearance and poise Low Moderate A veragc Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences Low I Moderate High II Low I Moderate o o High D I Low Moderate High D D D 253

PAGE 272

4. Communicate effectively both written and orally Low Moderate A vcrage Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency C l asswork Campu s Activi t ies Off-campus Ex p eriences Low Moderate I High I I Low Moderate I High II Low Moderate H ig h D D D D D D D D D 5. Achieve positi ve working relationships with employees Lo w Moderate Average A bo ve Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following rate the level of contribution for this competency C l asswork Campus Activ i t i es Off-campus Ex p erie n ces I Low Moderate I High II Lo w I Moderate I High I I Low Moderate High D D D D D D D D D 6. Identify operational problems Low Moderate Average Above A veragc Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campu s Activities Off-campus Ex p erie n ces I Low Moderate I High II Low I Moderate High II Low Moderate High D D D D D D D D D 7. Maintain professional and ethical standards in the work environment Low Moderate Average Above A vcrage Outsta nding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Act i vit i es Off-campus Experiences I Low M odcrate I High I '---1 g,_h__,li..____L-'-o \\_'__,'---M_o_d_ e_r<_lte __,'---_H_,ig"'-h----' D D D D D D D D D 254

PAGE 273

8. Possess needed leadership qualities to achieve organizational objectives Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences Low Moderate High II Low I Moderate I II Low Moderate D D D D D D D D D 9. Motivate employees to achieve desired performance Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences Low Moderate High II Low I Moderate High II Low Moderate High D D D D D D D D D 10. Follow the legal responsibilities associated with hospitality operations Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Campus Activities Off-campus Experiences ._I _Lo_w _.___M_o_d_er_a_te--'-_H_,ig"--'h----'11 Low I Moderate High I Ll _L___:_:H:..:Jig;<:h.:_____j D D D D D D D D D 11. Follow hygiene and safety regulations to ensure compliance by the organization. Low Moderate Average Above Average Outstanding D D D D D For EACH of the following, rate the level of contribution for this competency Classwork Camuus Activities Off-camuus Exueriences I Low Moderate High II Low I Moderate High II Low Moderate High D D D D D D D D D 255

PAGE 274

12. Write your year of birth 19 __ 13. Your sex Male Female 14. Are you an international student or foreign national? Yes No 15. What is your racial or ethnic identification? (Mark only one.) American Indian or other Native American Asian. Asian American or Pacific Islander Black or African American __ White (non-Hispanic) Mexican or Mexican American __ Other Hispanic or Latino __ Other (describe) __________ 19. What is your current classification in college? __ Freshman / first-year __ Sophomore Junior Senior Unclassified 20. Thinking about this current academic term, how would you characterize your enrollment? Full-time Less than full-time 21. Are you a member of a social fraternity or sorority? Yes No 22. Are you a member of a student club? Yes No 23. Do you belong to any clubs or professional associations? If so, please identify them below: 24. Are you a student-athlete on a team sponsored by your institution's athletics department Yes No 25. On what team(s) are you an athlete (e.g., football, swimming)? Please answer below: 256

PAGE 275

26. What have most of your grades been up to now at this institution? A AB+ B BC + c C-or lower 27. Which of the following best describes where you are living now while attending college? __ Dormitory or other campus housing (not fraternity / sorority house) __ Residence (house, apartment, etc.) within walking distance of the institution __ Residence (house, apartment etc.) within driving distance of the institution __ Fraternity or sorority house 28. Do you work or volunteer while going to school? Yes No 29. What type of work or volunteer activities do you do? 30. Please print your major(s) or your expected major (s) 31. Please print your expected minor or concentration of study 32. To further understand how your college experience has contributed to your professional competency you may volunteer for an interview. Participation in the interview is voluntary. One participant from those that volunteer will be chosen at random to receive a gift certificate tor dinner at a local restaurant for S50. To volunteer, please provide your contact information below. Note: The inclusion of your identification information below is not required to complete the survey. Only those volunteering for an interview should include their personal identifying information. Name ---------------------------------Phone ____________________________________ __ Email __________________________ 257

PAGE 276

APPENDIX C SCRIPT FOR STUDENT SURVEYS The following script is read to students in class prior to distributing the survey: Good morning/afternoon, my name is Michael Wray/Jeffrey Miller. You are being asked to be in a research study that involves up to 500 hospitality management students. In a moment, I will pass out a survey that asks questions regarding your college experiences and how such experiences relate to your competency in hospitality management. Although there are no direct benefits to your participation, the information is important to those interested in understanding how experiences in college prepare students to enter the hospitality profession. Your participation is voluntary. To reduce possible identification of participants, I wi II soon pass out the survey to everyone in the classroom. You do not have to complete the survey. If you decide to participate, you indicate your consent by completing the survey To further reduce identifying you as a participant, you are not required to put any identifying information on the survey However, if you wish to participate in an interview, you may add your personal contact information at the end of the survey. For those that participate in interviews, a drawing will be held for a $50 gift certificate to a local restaurant. During the survey you may feel some discomfort or fatigue. Since the questions relate to your experiences in college and how competent you are in your profession, you may feel some embarrassment or dismay over your level of competency and success in college. To reduce fatigue, boredom or feelings of embarrassment or dismay, you may choose not to participate or stop the survey at any time. If you have questions regarding the survey or research study, you may contact me via email or phone. I will write my contact information on the chalkboard and have my business card available if you care to contact me. Furthermore, I will write the number to the UCD Human Subject Research Committee (HSRC) You can call them at 303-315-2732 Every effort will be made to keep your records a secret. It cannot be guaranteed. 258

PAGE 277

Both the records that identify you and the consent form signed by you may be looked at by others. They are: Human Subject Research Committee The research group doing the study Regulatory officials from the institution where the research is being conducted who want to make sure the research is safe The results from the research may be shared at a meeting. The results from the research may be in published articles. Your name will be kept private when information is presented. Once the survey is passed to all students (pass to all whether they intend to complete it or not, thereby protecting identity of those completing or not) read the following : Please verify that you have 32 questions in your survey and a pencil or pen to mark your responses. To help you understand how to fill out the survey correctly look at question one This question asks you to rate your ability to manage guest problems with understanding and sensitivity. You would rate your ability from low to outstanding by marking an X or check in the appropriate box below the response. Also notice that question one also asks for you to rate the level of contribution for this competency. The contribution may have come from class work, campus activities or off-campus experiences each of which may be low to high. Please mark EACH of these for every question in the survey. If there are no questions please begin When you are through tum the survey over and put your pencil down so I'll know when you are all finished. When complete simply tum the survey over and put your pen/pencil down. When all persons are finished I will collect the survey. FINALLY it is VERY important that if you have completed this survey already in a previous course DO NOT do the survey again 259

PAGE 278

APPENDIX D SCRIPT FOR STUDENT INTERVIEWS The following statement is read to each student participant: Thank you for participating in this interview. Your comments are vital to understanding the types of activities that have contributed to your sense of practical competency in Hospitality Management. The purpose today is to gain specific details that might not have emerged from the survey you completed regarding what aspects of college has contributed to your sense of competency in your profession I want to assure you that your comments are kept confidential by me and that no personal identification information will be shown to anyone. First, let me define a few terms: Professional Competency is defined as your ability to demonstrate the types of skills necessary for entry level managers in the hospitality field. Please refer to the competencies in the following table that are considered essential for entry level managers. Student Engagement is defined as educational purposeful activities such as collaborating with peers, reading, writing papers, and collaborating with faculty. Such activities may occur in the classroom through practices such as discussions, problems and assignments. They may also occur from activities you participated in on campus such as advising, athletics or student clubs. Additionally, you may have gained practical competency through off-campus activities such as work experience, volunteerism or social and religious groups. To help you understand the types of experiences that are considered related to student engagement please take a few moments to refer to the following table: (show student the student engagement table identifying three areas, classroom, campus, and off-campus). May I ask if the tables are clear to you and that each item makes sense? If not we may take some time to explain further. The following would serve as responses and begins the survey: 260

PAGE 279

1. To begin. May I ask what you expect your entry level job to be upon graduation? 2. With this job in mind, I ask that you refer to the two tables presented earlier. First is a list of competencies. I will ask you about each competency and then we will discuss how activities in each of the three areas prepared you for that competency. If you notice, the first competency listed is your ability to manage guest problems with understanding and sensitivity. Referring to the activities such as the one listed on the other table; classroom campus activities and off campus experiences, which aspect of your college experience contribute most to your competency in handling guest problems with understanding and sensitivity? Are there other activities in other areas that significantly contributed to your competency that you'd like to explain? Note: listed below are the 11 competencies l Ability to manage guest problems with understanding and sensitivity 2. Ability to develop positive customer relations 3 Demonstrate professional appearance and poise 4. Communicate effectively both written and orally 5 Achieve positive working relationships with employees 6. Identify operational problems 7 Maintain professional and ethical standards in the work environment 8 Possess needed leadership qualities to achieve organizational objectives 9. Motivate employees to achieve desired performance I 0. Follow the legal responsibilities associated with hotel operations I I. Follow hygiene and safety regulations to ensure compliance by the organization. 261

PAGE 280

3. The questions would repeat at this point for each of the essential competencies listed above. The respondent would explain the classroom campus and off-campus activities that contributed most to each essential competency in the survey. 3. To conclude is there anything else that you would like to talk about that describes your preparation in any of the competencies we discussed today? Are there any other sources that contributed to your level of preparation? I'd like to thank you for your participation today. 262

PAGE 281

APPENDIX E TABLE OF VARIABLES AND CODES Table E.1 Independent Variables Active Variables Variable Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Fraternity or Sorority participation Club Membership Athletic participation Residence Hall Type Volunteer Participation Work or Volunteer Experience Attribute Variables Variable Number 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Year of Birth Gender Citizenship Ethnicity Class-Year Description Full or Part-time status School Grades Extraneous Variables Variable Number 15 16 17 18 Club Name Sport Type Major Description Type of Work or Volunteer Experience 263 Code FRAT CLUB ATHLT RESID VOL UN WORK Code AGE GEND CITZN RACE CLASS STATUS SCHOOL GRADES Code CLBNM SPRTYP MAJOR WRKTYP

PAGE 282

Table E.1 (Cont.) Dependent Variables Variable Description Code Number 19 Ability to manage guest problems with PRBLMS understanding and sensitivity 20 Guest problem contribution from class PRBCLS 21 Guest problem contribution from campus PRBCMP 22 Guest problem contribution from off-campus PRBNCM 23 Ability to develop positive customer relations RELTNS 24 Customer relation contribution from class RLNCLS 25 Customer relation contribution from campus RLNCMP 26 Customer relation contribution from off-campus RLNNCM 27 Demonstrate professional appearance and poise APPEAR 28 Appearance contribution from class APRCLS 29 Appearance contribution from campus APRCMP 30 Appearance contribution from off-campus APRNCM 31 Communicate effectively both written and orally COMMUN 32 Communication contribution from class CMNCLS 33 Communication contribution from campus CMNCMP 34 Communication contribution from off-campus CMNNCM 35 Achieve positive working relationships with RELTNS employees 36 Relationships contribution from class RLTCLS 37 Relationships contribution from campus RLTCMP 38 Relationships contribution from off-campus RLTNCM 39 Identify operational problems OPERTN 40 Operational problems contribution from class OPRCLS 41 Operational problems contribution from campus OPRCMP 42 Operational problems contribution from offOPRNCM campus 43 Maintain professional and ethical standards in the ETHICS work environment 44 Ethics contribution from class ETHCLS 45 Ethics contribution from campus ETHCMP 46 Ethics contribution from off-campus ETHNCM 47 Possess needed leadership qualities to achieve LEADER organizational objectives 48 Leadership contribution from class LDRCLS 49 Leadership contribution from campus LDRCMP 264

PAGE 283

Table E.l (Cont.) Variable Number 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Description Leadership contribution from off-campus Motivate employees to achieve desired performance Motivational contribution from class Motivational contribution from campus Motivational contribution from off-campus Follow the legal responsibilities associated with hotel operations Legalities contribution from class Legalities contribution from campus Legalities contribution from off-campus Follow hygiene and safety regulations to ensure compliance by the organization Hygienic contribution from class Hygienic contribution from campus Hygienic contribution from off-campus Code LDRNCM MOTIVN MTVCLS MTVCMP MTVNCM LEGAL LGLCLS LGLCMP LGLNCM HYGENE HYGCLS HYGCMP HYGNCM Note. In descriptive analysis the level of contribution from class campus and off-campus activities is a dependent variable. In correlation analysis such contribution levels are independent variables used associated with the dependent variable-level of competency. 265

PAGE 284

APPENDIX F Table F.l FACTOR LOADINGS FOR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCT Item Factor Loading 2 3 Communality Operations from campus .74fs .42 Customer relations from campus .748 .53 Communicate from campus .746 .46 Leadership from campus .743 .51 Ethics from campus .739 .59 Employee relationships from campus .732 .53 Problems contribution from campus .715 .43 Legal responsibility from campus .704 .48 Professional appearance from campus .646 .46 Motivate employees from campus .464 .25 Hygiene and safety from campus .429 .58 Operations from off-campus .734 .41 Employee relationships from off-campus .731 .44 Customer relations from off-campus .717 .57 Ethics from off-campus .714 .54 Leadership from off-campus .693 .39 Professional appearance from off-campus .672 .58 Problems contribution from off-campus .668 .54 Communicate from off-campus .639 .47 Motivate employees from off-campus .617 .60 Hygiene and safety from off-campus .601 .51 Legal responsibility from off-campus .467 .48 Motivate employees from class .710 .58 Leadership from class .682 .48 Customer relations from class .663 .53 Ethics from class .65.5 .24 266

PAGE 285

Table F.l (Cont.) Item Factor Loading 2 3 Communality Professional appearance from class .631 .41 Problems contribution from class .612 .29 Employee relationships from class .596 52 Operations from class .563 28 Hygiene and safety from class .523 .36 Legal responsibility from class .522 .21 Communicate from class .495 .38 Eigen values 7.67 4.89 2.48 % ofvariance 23.25 14.82 7.51 267

PAGE 286

APPENDIX G DATA RULES The following rules were written as the need for detennining a rule for use and interpretation of data occurred. The statements are in no particular order and are for the benefit of the researcher to have a record of using and interpreting data in a consistent manner. Such decisions on data use are important to be consistent to improve the reliability of the statistical and qualitative analysis. 1. If a respondent quit the survey after starting, the survey is not included in the study. I assume the student did not intend to participate and did not include data. 2. If a respondent started in one pen color, then continued with a high lighter, some responses had both pen and highlighter markings Since the full survey was completed in highlighter and only a few questions in pen, the highlighter was considered the intended response. 3. The survey asks year of birth ... since the survey was conducted in October, two months shy of the end of the calendar year, the respondent s age includes the entire year. So a response of a birth year of 1989, yields an age of20. 4. If a respondent inquired during the survey about them being a first year student with no college grades. I asked them to estimate what their expected grades are not their high school grades. 5. For missing values I did not include any data. Although some respondents appeared to leave the same item blank, such as campus activities, l could not assume that a no response meant 'low. I left the item blank. 6. If a respondent made a mark that ran across two responses, such as junior and sophomore, 1 looked at the mark and tried to identify where the pen mark began and chose that response assuming that the tail' of the response carried over on to the other response area 7. If a respondent stated an intramural sport, but did not list a fonnal team as a yes response in school sponsored sports, l recorded the team name but left the response for formal athletic team as a no response. 8. Some respondents left the entire demographic section blank. I assume that they did not want that information known to others and wanted it private. I still included their responses from areas where they left a response. 9. If a student listed their concentration as hotel /restaurant I used hotel as the major and restaurant as the minor. 268

PAGE 287

I 0. If a respondent listed hotel/events as a response for major, I used hotel as the major and events as the minor. 11. If a respondent listed Hospitality Tourism and Events as the major, I recorded it as Hospitality to most closely match coursework at all schools. 12. Some respondents at Tech College listed just the word, Hospitality and did not include a concentration or minor. I recorded them as Hospitality major. 13. If a respondent listed multiple grades, such as Aand B + I averaged the responses and entered 3.85 as the raw data. I would do the same if they listed multiple grades. 14. If a respondent listed a type ofwork or volunteerism in question 29 but left question 28 as a 'no' response as to working while going to school, I changed the response to yes 15. Some students listed their sorority / fraternity as a student club. I did not include these as these are not clubs, such as Nutrition Club or PCMA etc 16. If a respondent included multiple race categories, such as Asian and White I listed them as other, and then described them as Asian/white, assuming they intended to list themselves as mixed race 17. If a respondent listed both moderate and high or average and above average, I chose the higher response and did not average them. My assumption is that they intended to respond something 'higher than the lower response, so I went with the highest mark. 269

PAGE 288

APPENDIX H ANOV A TABLES Table H 1 Mean and SD of Student Se/f-Rep_orted HM Comp_etency_ cc TC HM Competency M SD N M SD N Manage guest problems 3.87 .76 196 3 88 .71 236 Develop customer relations 3.98 .76 196 4 07 .75 232 Professional appearance 4.14 .81 196 4.09 .77 232 Communicate written and oral 3.73 .82 196 3.79 .79 232 Relationships with employees 4.15 .82 196 4.19 .69 232 Identif y operational problems 3 56 .85 196 3.43 .89 232 Maintain ethical standards 4.29 .72 196 4 .19 .72 232 Possess leadership qualities* 4.02 .79 196 3 86 .83 232 Motivate employees for performance 3.69 .79 196 3.62 .80 232 Follow legal responsibility 3 .81 .9 2 196 3.68 92 232 Follow hygiene and safety regulation s 4.46 .72 196 4.36 .74 232 *significant p = .040 270

PAGE 289

Table H.2 Betvveen Program Effects of HAI Competenc_v Observed HM Competency df F E. D Power Manage guest problems .012 .914 .01 .051 Develop customer relations 1.501 .221 .06 .231 Professional appearance .317 .574 .03 .087 Communicate written and oral .559 .455 .03 .116 Relationships with employees .401 .527 .03 .097 Identify operational problems 2.359 .125 .08 335 Maintain ethical standards 2.044 .154 .07 297 Possess leadership qualities 4 242 .040 .1 0 .538 Motivate employees for performance I. 1 11 .292 .06 .183 Follow legal responsibility 2.128 .145 .07 .307 Follow hygiene and safety 2.042 .154 .07 .297 regulations 271

PAGE 290

Table H.3 Mean and SD o[Contributionfrom the Campus D om ain cc TC HM Competency M SD N M SD N Manage guest problems 1.70 .71 193 1.59 .69 232 Develop customer relations 1.80 .74 193 1.76 68 232 Professional appearance* 2.06 .78 193 1.89 .74 232 Communicate \\Titten and oral 1.88 .76 193 2.37 .69 232 Relationship s with employees 2.01 .76 193 1.90 .78 232 Identify operational problems 1.77 .72 193 1.71 .69 232 Maintain ethical standards 2.00 .79 193 1.92 .74 232 Possess leadership qualities** 2.01 .79 193 1.86 .75 232 Motivate employees for performance 1.87 .74 193 1.86 1.5 232 Follow legal responsibility 1.86 .77 193 1.76 .74 232 Follow hygi ene and safety regulations 2.22 2.37 193 1.98 .83 232 *significant, p = .013: **s ignificant, p = .056 272

PAGE 291

Table H.4 B e tw e en Program Effe cts of HM Competenc y from th e Campus Domain Observed HM df F p_ !J Power Manage guest problems 2.698 .101 080 .374 Develop customer relations .372 .542 010 .093 Professional appearance 5.689 .018 .110 .663 Communicate written and oral .804 .370 050 .145 Relationships with employees 2.387 .123 .080 338 Identify operational problems 1 .685 .408 050 .131 Maintain ethical standards .999 .318 .002 .169 Possess leadership qualities 3 714 .055 .100 .485 Motivate employees for performance .007 935 001 .051 Follow legal responsibility 1 2.329 .128 .080 .331 Follow hygiene and safety regulations 2.059 .152 070 .299 273

PAGE 292

Table H.5 Mean and SD o.fContribution.from the Off-campu s Domain cc TC HM Competency M so N M SD N Manage guest problems* 2.66 .57 193 2.54 .69 232 Develop customer relations 2.60 .61 193 2.61 62 232 Professional appearance 2.62 .58 193 2.59 62 232 Communicate written and oral 2.41 .67 193 2.37 .69 232 Relationships with employees 2.77 .47 193 2.68 .57 232 Identify operational problems** 2.39 .66 193 2.27 .66 232 Maintain ethical standards 2.65 .59 193 2.61 .59 232 Possess leadership qualities 2.56 .61 193 2.50 .61 232 Motivate employees for performance 2.48 .62 193 2.38 .63 232 Follow legal responsibility 2.32 .68 193 2.25 .73 232 Follow hygiene and safety regulations 2.69 .56 193 2.63 60 232 *significant p = .04 5 ; **significant, p = .058 274

PAGE 293

Table H.6 Between Program Effects of HM Competencvfrom the Off-campus Domain Observed HM df F p D Power Manage guest problems 1 4.040 .045 .100 .518 Develop customer relations .073 .787 .001 .058 Professional appearance .211 .646 .001 .074 Communicate written and oral .525 .469 .030 .112 Relationships with employees 2.807 .095 .080 .387 Identify operational problems 3.619 .058 .090 .475 Maintain ethical standards .389 .533 .030 .095 Possess leadership qualities 1.155 .283 .060 .189 Motivate employees for performance 2.844 .092 .080 .391 Follow legal responsibility 1 1.069 .302 .060 .178 Follow hygiene and safety regulations 1 1.127 .289 .060 .185 275

PAGE 294

APPENDIX I MULTIPLE REGRESSION TABLES Table I.l Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summm)' for Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains, Controllingfor Program Type, Predicting Managing Guest Problem Competency Variable B SEB p R-6. k Model I .I I 12 Classroom .10 .06 .09 Campus 02 .05 .02 Off-campus .39 .05 r* 0 ) Constant 2.60 .21 Model2 .11 <.01 Cla ss room .11 .06 .10 Campus .03 05 04 Off -campus .40 .05 .35 School Typ e .05 .07 .35 Constant 2.48 .25 *p < .001 Table 1.2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Summaryfor Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains, Controlfingfor Program T ype, Predicting Maintaining Positive Customer Relations Competency Variable B SEB 8 R-' 6.R1 Modell .16* .17 Classroom .21 06 .18* Ca mpus .II .05 .10** Off-campus .41 .05 .34* Constant 2 .31 .19 Model2 .17 .01 Classroom .22 .06 .19 Campus .II .05 .10 Off-campus .41 05 .34 School T ype .12 .06 .08 Constant 2.11 .22 p < 00 I ; * p = .04 276

PAGE 295

Table 1.3 Hierarchical Multiple Regre s sion Analysis Summary for Classroom, Campus and Off-campus Domains Controllingfor Program Type, Predicting Demonstration of Appearance and Poise Competency Variable 8 SEB p R bfi' Modell 1 7 .17 Classroom .12 .19 .II** Campus .07 .05 .07 Off-campus .49 .05 .38* Constant 2.45 Model2 .16 <.01 Classroom .12 .05 .II Campus 07 .05 07 Off-campus .49 .06 .38 School Type <-.01 07 < .01 Constant *p < 001; **p = .03 Table 1.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains Controllingfor Program T_vpe. Predicting Communicating Orally and in Writing Model I 24* .25 Classroom 45 .06 33* Campus .05 .05 .05 Off-campus .37 .05 .31 Constant 1.65 .19 Modcl2 Classroom .45 06 .33 .24 <.01 Campus .05 .05 .05 Off-campus 37 .05 .31 School Type .05 .07 .03 Constant 1.56 .22 *p < .00\ 277

PAGE 296

Table I.5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains, Controllingfor Program Type, Predicting Maintaining Employee Relations Competency Variable 8 SEB p R Modell .19* .IS Classroom .14 .05 .13** Campus 05 05 .05 Off-campus 56 06 .40* Constant 2 26 .20 Model2 .19 .19 Classroom .13 .05 .13 Campus 59 .05 .06 Off-campus 56 .06 .40 School Type .10 .07 .06 Constant 2 .10 .23 *p<.OOI;p=.OI Table 1.6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summwy for Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains, Controllingfor Program T_vpe, Predicting Ability to IdentifY Operational Problems Variable 8 SEB p R Model I .34* .34 Classroom 34 06 26* Campus 07 .05 06 Off-campus 62 .05 .47* Constant !.19 .17 Model2 .33 <.OJ Classroom .34 .06 .26 Campus 07 .05 .06 Off-campus .62 .05 .46 School Type -.02 .07 -.0 I Constant 1.22 .21 *p<.001 278

PAGE 297

Table I. 7 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Ana(vsis Summaryfor Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains Contro/lingfor Program Type, Predicting Maintain Ethical Standards Variable B SEB p Model 1 20* .20 Classroom .19 .05 .16** Campus .06 .05 .07 Off-campus .47 .05 .38* Constant 2.44 .18 Model2 .20 <.01 Classroom .18 .05 .16 Campus .06 .05 .07 Off-campus .46 05 38 School Type -.07 .06 -.05 Constant 2.56 .21 *p < .001; **p = .001 Table 1.8 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summaryfor Classroom, Campus, and Ojf-campus Domains, Controlling/or Program Type, Predicting Demonstrate Leadership Qualities Variable B SEB p R t::,RModel I .27* .28 Classroom .23 .56 .18* Campus .17 .05 .16* Off-campus .55 .06 .42* Constant 1.70 .19 Model2 .27 <.01 Classroom .23 .06 .18 Campus .17 .05 .16 Off-campus .55 06 .41 School Type -.09 .07 .05 Constant 1.84 .22 *p < .001 279

PAGE 298

Table l.9 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summary.for Classroom, Campus, and QIJ-campus Domains, Controlling for Program Type, Predicting Ability to Motivate Emplo vees Model I 1.63 .16 .29* .30 Classroom .21 .05 .19* Campus .I 0 .05 I 0** Off-campus .57 .52 .45* Constant 1.63 .16 Model 2 .29 <.01 Classroom .21 Campus .11 Off-campus .57 School Type .01 Constant 1.61 *p < .001; ** p = .029 Table I.l 0 .05 .05 .05 .07 .20 .19 .10 .45 .01 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summaryfor Classroom, Campus, and Offcampus Domains, Controlling/or Program Type Predicting Understanding Legal Responsibilities Competency Variable B SEB @ R-' !:::..R1 Model I .34* .35 Classroom .42 .06 30* Campus .15 .05 12** Off-campus .52 .05 .40* Constant 1.23 .18 Model2 .34 <.01 Classroom .42 .06 .29 Campus .15 .05 .12 Off-campus .52 .05 .40 School Type -.03 .07 -.01 Constant 1.28 .22 *p < 00 1:** p = 004 280

PAGE 299

Table 1.11 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Classroom, Campus, and Off-campus Domains Control/ingfor Program Type, Predicting Maintain Hygiene and Safety Variable B SEB B Modell 22 2 2 Classroom .20 .05 .18* Campus .05 .20 .06 Off-campus .50 .05 .40* Constant 2 54 .18 Model2 .21 <.01 Classroom .19 .05 \8 Campus .03 02 06 Off-campu s 50 .54 .40 School Type -.03 .06 -.02 Constant 2.59 .21 *p < .001 281

PAGE 300

APPENDIX 1 COURSE REQUIREMENTS BY M AJOR/CONCENTRATION AND PROGRAM Table J l Hotel Management Course R e quirem e nt s h y Institution and Percenta ge of Hours Hours Hours Course Name TC cc Hotel/R e staurant Operations 3 9 Principles of Hospitality 3 Hospitality and Tourism Law 3 4.5 Property Management 3 4 5 Front Office Management 3 4.5 Hospitality Promotions 3 Travel and Ecotourism 3 Hospitality for Profit 3 4.5 Convention Management 3 Sustainable Tourism 3 Introduction to Nutrition 3 Hospitality Human Resources 3 4.5 Negotiations and Sales 3 4.5 Hotel Housekeeping 3 Hospitality Marketing 3 4.5 Senior Experience 3 4.5 Security a nd Safety 3 Entrepreneurial Creativity 3 Customer Service 4.5 Internship 13.5 Hospitality Management 4 5 Electives 2 20.5 Revenue Management 4.5 Capstone E x p e rience Cours e 3 I Total Hotel and Lodging 56 88 Total of all courses 46.7 46.6 2 82

PAGE 301

Table J.2 Food and Beverage Course Requirements by Institutional Type and Percentage of Hours Hours Hours Course Name TC cc Food Selection and Purchasing 3 3 Food Sanitation and Safety 3 1.5 Labor and Product Controls 3 4.5 Wine, Beer, Spirits 3 3 Food Production 6 30 Food and Beverage Service 3 Healthy Cooking 3 Food and Beverage Operations 4.5 Total Food and Beverage 21 49.5 Percent of total courses 17.5 26.2 Table J.3 Events, Recreation Tourism Course Requirements by Institution and Percentage of Hours Hours Hours Course Name TC cc Guest Service Management 4.5 Human Resources 3 l.5 Management 3 4.5 Marketing 3 4.5 Negotiations and Sales 3 9.0 Events Management 13.5 Facilities / Property Management 6 4.5 Food and Beverage Operations 4.5 Communications / Media 3 9.0 Total Events / Sports / Tourism 21 55.5 Percent of all courses 17.5 29.4 283

PAGE 302

Table 1.4 Nutrition / Dietetics Course Requirements by Institution and Percentage of Hours Hours Hours Course Name Anatomy Organic Chemistry Food Microbiology / Science Tech Writing Health Care Management Health Care Research Medical Therapy Healthcare Counseling Food Production/Sanitation Food Cost Control Nutrition Food Management / Finance Total Nutrition/Health Percent of all courses Table 1.5 TC CC 8 4.5 3 4.5 3 6 3 3 3 10 3 31 73 60.8 9.0 4.5 4.5 60.0 4.5 17.5 9.0 118 62.4 General Business Course Requirements by Institutional Type and Percentage of Hours Course Name Accounting/Finance Revenue Management Career Management Economics Leadership / Management Business Ethics Total General Business Percent of all courses Hours TC 3 3 9 7.5 284 Hours cc 15.5 4.5 I 4.5 9 4.5 39 20.6

PAGE 303

Table J.6 General Education Course Requirements by Institution and Percentag e of Credit Hours Hours Hours Course Name TC cc English Comp/ Analysis 6 9 Public Speaking 3 4.5 Social Science 6 4.5 College Math 4.5 Statistics 4 4.5 Arts and Literature 6 History 3 4.5 Natural Science 3 4.5 Multicultural Course 3 Foreign Language 3 4.5 Total General Education 37 40.5 Percent of all courses 30.8 21.4 285

PAGE 304

REFERENCES Astin, A. ( 1984 ). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education, Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. ( 1986). Social foundations of thought and action : A social cognitive themy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy, Current Directions in Psychological Science. 9, 75-78. Baruch, Y. ( 1999). Response rates in academic studies: A comparative analysis Human Relations, 52, 421-434. Baum, T. ( 1990). Competencies for hotel management; Industry expectation of education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2(4), 13-16. Baum, T. (1991) The U.S. and the U.K.: Comparing expectations ofmanagement trainees. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 32(2), 79-84. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers, (Report). The Qualitative Report, 13( 4 ), 544( 516) Breiter, D., & Hoart, H. (2000). Competencies in foodservice information technology expected by the foodservice industry of graduates of hospitality bachelor's degree programs in the United States. Journal of Hospitalit,v & Tourism Education, 12(2), 11-17. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, P.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience. and school, National Research Council/National Academy Press. 286

PAGE 305

Buergenneister, J. (1983). Assessment ofthe educational skills and competencies needed by beginning hospitality managers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 8( 1 }, 3 8-5 3. Byrne, J. V. (2006). Public higher education reform five years after the Kellogg Commision on the future of state and land-grand universities (National Association of State universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation) Retrieved June 9, 2010, from http: // www.aplu.org/N etCommunity/Document.Doc?id= 180 Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Bernai, E. M., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1998). Collaborative learning: Preferences, gains in cognitive and affective outcomes and openness to diversity among college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL. Campbell, D. F., & Evans, R. (2001). Quality learning communities: It's commitment that counts. Community College Journal a./Research & Practice, 25(1), 1-4. Capstick, S., & Fleming, H. (2002). Peer assisted learning in an undergraduate hospitality course: Second year students supporting first year students in group learning. Journal ofHospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 1 (1 ), 69-75. Carnegie Foundation. ( 1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching, Princeton, NJ. Chan, B., & Coleman, M. (2004). Skills and competencies needed for the Hong Kong hotel industry. Journal ofHuman Resources in Ho5pitality & Tourism, 3(1), 3-18. Chang, M. H., & Chien, L. C. (2006). Applying problem-based learning to theoretical science course of culinary art education: An example of ingredients course. Journal a./Culinary Science & Technology, 5(2 / 3), 5972. Cheng, K.W., & Chen, Y.-F. (2008). The process of integrating knowledge management into teacher's teaching resources: A case study on the hospitality college. Journal oflnstructional Psychology, 35(4), 380-386. 287

PAGE 306

Chickering, A. W. (2006) Every student can learn-if ... Ab o ut Campus 11(2) 9-15 Christou, E. (2002). Revisiting competencies for hospitality management: Contemporary views of the stakeholders. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education. 14( l ), 25-32. Christou, E & Eaton J (2000). Management competencies of graduate trainees of hospitality and tourism programs Annal s of Tourism R es earch 2 7 (4) 1058-1061. Chronbach, L. J. (1951 ) Psychometrika 16, 297-334. Chung-Herrera, B. G Enz, C. A., & Lankau, M. J. (2003). Grooming future hospitality leaders: A competencies model. Cornell Hot e l and R e staurant Administration Quarterl y 44(3) 17-25 Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical po w er and for the beha v ioral s ciences (2"d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Creswell, J. (Ed.) (2008). Research Desig n : Qualitative, quantitativ e and mixed method<; approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dale, C. & McCarthy, P. (2006). I like your style: The learning approaches of leisure tourism and hospitality students stud y ing generic modules. Journal of Hospitalit y Leisure. Sport and Tourism Education 5(2) 48-58 Dart, J. (2006). Developing a learning environment conducive to active learning and participation: Group presentations and formative assessment at level one. Journal of Hospitality, L e isure, Sport and Touri s m Edu c ation, 5(1 ), 58-65 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.). (2008) Strategi es of qualitativ e inquir y Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Dewey, J. ( 1916 ). D e mocracy and edu c ation New York, Free Pre s s. Dewey, J. (1938) Exp e ri e nce and edu c at i on. New York, Macmill a n. 2 8 8

PAGE 307

Dopson, L. (2004). Determination of important underlying dimensions of e commerce competencies in hospitality curricula from the hotel managers' perspective. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 4(3), 69-85. Douglas, A., Miller, B., Kwansa, F., & Cummings, P. (2007). Students' perceptions of the usefulness of a virtual simulation in post-secondary hospitality education. Journal ofTeaching in Travel & Tourism 7(3), 1-19. Downey, J. F., & Deveau, L. R. (1988). Hospitality Internships: An industry view. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 18-20. Duncan, M., J., & Yahya, A. N. (2006). Using problem-based learning in sports related courses: An overview of module development and student responses in an undergraduate sports studies module. Journal ofHospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 5(1) 50-57. Fjelstul, J. (2007). Competencies and opportunities for entry level golf and club management careers: Perceptions from the industry. Journal of Hospitali(v & Tourism Education, 19(3) 32-38. Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hunt, J. B., Jr., Carruthers, G., Callan, P.M., & Ewell, P. T. (2006). Measuring up, 2006: The national report card on higher education. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http: // measuringup.highereducation.org / docs / 2006/NationaiReport _2006.p df Jacobs, J. W., Lalopa J., & Sorgule P. (2001 ). Pilot testing a student-designed team exam in an introduction to hospitality and tourism management course. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I 0, 3 71-384. Jeou-Shyan, H., & HsinYi, L. (2006). Needs assessment of professional competencies of F&B / hospitality management students at college and university level. Journal ofTeaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(3), 1-26. Johnson D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction. 289

PAGE 308

Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer commission report and its impact on undergraduate research. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning, (93), 19-38. Kay, C., & Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality-management competencies. (Statistical Data Included). Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41(2), 52. Keppel, G. (1991 ). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kiser, J., W., & Partlow, C., G. (1999). Experiential learning in hospitality education: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitali(v & Tourism Education, II (213 ), 70-7 4. Kline, S., Frash, R., E. Jr, & Stahura, J., M (2004). Empowering individual effort in cooperative learning. Journal o.f Hospitality & Tourism Education, 16( 4 ), 35-43. Knafl, K., & Breitmayer, B. J. (1989). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues conceptual clarity and purpose. ln J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative Nursing Research (pp. 193-203). Rockvillle, MD: Aspen. Kozar, J., M., Horton, B., W., & Gregoire, M., B. (2005). Is gaining work experience while going to school helping or hindering hospitality management students? Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 4( 1 ), 110. Krefting, L. (1991 ). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therap_v, 45, 214-222. Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Building learning communities through social and emotional learning: Navigating the rough seas of implementation. Professional School Counseling, I 0(1 ), 102-107. Kuh, G. D. (2001). The national survey ofstudent engagement: Conceptllal framework and overvie1v ofp5ychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35, 24-32. 290

PAGE 309

Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., Ouimet, J. A., Gonyea, R. M., & Kennedy, J. (200 1 ). NSSE technical and norms report. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Kuh, G. D., Pace, C., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38, 435-454. LaLopa, J., M., & McDonald, J., T. (2002). Problem-based learning: Providing students the opportunity to solve real-world industry problems in the safety of the classroom. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 14(3 ), 36-41. Leech, N., L., Barrett, K., C., & Morgan, G., A. (2008). SPSSfor intermediate statistics: Use and inte1pretation (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lefever, M. M., & Withiam, G. (1998). Curriculum review: How industry views hospitality education. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarter(v, 13(4), 70-78 Levine, G (1991 ). A guide to SPSS for analysis o.f variance, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lin, S. C. (2002). Exploring the relationships between hotel management courses and industry required competencies. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 2(3/4 ), 81-10 I. Litwin, M. S. (2002). How to measure surve v reliability and validity (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lomax, R. G. (2001 ). Statistical concepts: A second coursefor education and the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. ( 1994). Qualitative analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 291

PAGE 310

McDonald, W. M., Brown C. E., & Littleton, R. A. (1999). The Ernest L. Boyer laboratory for learning: A model of effective faculty involvement in residential programming College Student Affairs Journal, 19 35-43. Morse J. M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olson K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research international Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2). National Study of Student Engagement. (2009). NSSE 2006 standard version. Researchers Section, Subsection NSSE survey instruments Retrieved April 18, 2009 from http: // nsse.iub.edu / html/survey _instruments_ 2006.cfm Nealy, M. A. ( 1992) Quality interviews with adult students and train ees: A communications course in student personnel and inse rvice training. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas. Onwuegbusie, A. J., & Leech N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report 12(2), 238-254. Pace, C. R. (1990). College student experiences questionnaire (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Center for the Study of Evaluation. Pascarella, E ., Edison M ., Whitt, E.J., Hagedorn L. S., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P.T. (1996) What we have learned from the first year of the National Study of Student Learning? Journal of College Student Development, 3 7(2), 182192 Pascarella E . & Terenzini, P (1991 ). How college affects students: Findings and insightsjrom ofresearch. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Perdue J., Ninemeier J., & Woods, R. A. (2000). Competencies Required for Club Managers. Cornell Hotel & ; Restaurallf Administration Quarterl y 41(2) 79 Perdue, J ., Woods, R H., & Ninemeier J. (2005). Club management competencies 2005: Updated infonnation for the classroom Journal of Hospitalit y & Tourism Education, 14(2), 19-32. 292

PAGE 311

Pike, G. R., Schroeder, C. C., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning communities and first-year college experiences and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 609-621. Raykov, T. (1998). Cronbach 's alpha and reliability of composite with interrelated nonhomogenous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 375-385. Richards, T. J ., & Richards, L. (1998). Using computers in qualitative research. In Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Material, 445-462. London: Sage. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Slavin, R. ( 1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Stake, R. ( 1995). The art of case research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Stonybrook Reinvention Center. (2001 ). Three _vears after the Boyer report. State University ofNew York. Tas, R. F. ( 1983). Competencies important.for hotel manager trainees. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State university. Tas, R. F. (1988). Teaching future managers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, .?9(2), 41-43. Tas, R. F., LaBrecque, S. V., & Clayton, H. R. (1996). Property-management competencies for management trainees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 90-97. Tesone, D. V. (2003). Why do some new hospitality college grads lack management skills? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, I(4), 33-45. 293

PAGE 312

Tesone, D. V., & Ricci, P. (2005). Job competency expectations for hospitality and tourism employees: Perceptions of educational preparation. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(2), 53-64. Tesone, D. V., & Ricci, P. (2006). Toward a Definition of Entry-Level Job Competencies: Hospitality Manager Perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7( 4), 65-80. Tinto V. ( 1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures for student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leavinf_ college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (Vol. 211 ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto V. ( 1998). Research on student persistence The Review of Higher Education. 21, 167-I 77. Tinto, V. (2002). Taking student learning seriously. Paper presented at the Southwest Regional Learning Communities Conference, Tempe, AZ. Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1994). Freshman interest groups and the first-year experience: Constructing student communities in a large university. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 6, 7-27. Titz K., & Wollen, M. (2002). Consensus building as a change strategy for experiential learning at the Conrad N. Hilton College Hilton hotel. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Education, 14(2), 31-37. Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Terenzini, P.T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1999). Interactions with peers and objective and self-reported cognitive outcomes across 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development 40( I), 61-78. Wickens, E., & Tripe, J. (2006). Listening, understanding and responding to leisure and tourism undergraduates. Journal ofHmpitali(v. Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2) 4-13. Yin, R. K. (2003a). Applications of case study research (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .. 294

PAGE 313

Yin, R K. (2003b). Case study research: D e sign and methods (41h ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138. 295