What Faculty Say About Student Veterans

Transcription

1 What Faculty Say About Student Veterans A Survey of UNR and TMCC Instructors 2013 Carlene Gonzalez, PhD & Marta Elliott, PhD University of Nevada, Reno University Veterans Coalition

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Purpose of Survey 4 Study Sample 4 Part I: How Well Faculty Know Student Veterans 5 Part II: Military-related Issues in the Classroom 7 Part III: Attitudes toward Student Veterans 11 Part IV: Attitudes toward Accommodations for Student Veterans 13 Part V: Attitudes toward University-Level Accommodations 15 Part VI: Faculty Willingness to Participate in Special Training 16 Part VII: Differentiating Between UNR and TMCC Faculty 19 Part VIII: Correlates of Contact with Student Veterans 20 Conclusion 21 Policy Recommendations 21 References 22 Appendix: Methodology 23 Acknowledgements 24 1

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Instructors at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) were surveyed in the spring of The results represent the views of faculty who voluntarily completed the survey, and may not necessarily apply to all teaching faculty at these two institutions. Virtually all instructors are aware of student veterans in their classrooms, primarily because they self-identify in some fashion, but relatively few instructors know these students very well. Most instructors indicate that military-related issues do not come up often in class, and the vast majority of faculty report that they rarely share their views on the post 9/11 wars, though most do not believe that the faculty should be careful not to criticize the U.S. military. The faculty tends to have fairly positive attitudes toward student veterans, believing that they have earned a college education, have a greater understanding of global issues, and are more serious about learning than students are in general. Furthermore, very few instructors believe that student veterans are especially likely to be confrontational with faculty, or are relatively more likely to have psychological problems. The majority of faculty do not think that student veterans tend to feel like they do not fit in on campus; however, our previous studies of student veterans indicate this is a very common experience (see Reports at Although relatively few faculty members would change their teaching style to accommodate student veterans, most were willing to work with student veterans, for example, by accommodating them when their military duties interfered with class. There is also strong support among faculty for offering more services on campus for student veterans, and giving some academic credit for military service whenever appropriate. 2

4 However, almost half of instructors say they would be unlikely to participate in a seminar to learn more about the needs of student veterans. These same instructors are less likely to believe that they should take steps to support student veterans in the classroom, and they are more likely to discuss military-related issues in class, including their views on the post 9/11 wars. These differences suggest that the faculty who may have the most to learn from a seminar on student veterans are the least likely to voluntarily participate in such training. Community college (TMCC) and university (UNR) instructors differ somewhat. For example, TMCC faculty tend to know more student veterans personally, are more likely to accommodate student veterans in the classroom, and are more willing to participate in a seminar. Instructors who do know student veterans well (regardless of whether they teach at TMCC or at UNR) tend to be more willing to help them, suggesting that close contact with student veterans increases willingness to help and to learn more about them. In contrast, those with little exposure to student veterans tend to be more likely to share their views in class on the post 9/11 wars. In sum, the faculty respondents to this survey hold generally positive attitudes toward student veterans and are willing to help them. However, not all faculty members would voluntarily attend a seminar to increase their understanding of student veterans, and those who are least willing to take part in a seminar and who are least familiar with student veterans are also less likely be accommodating, and more likely to share their views on the post 9/11 wars in class. Thus, it appears that the minority of faculty who would not voluntarily take part in a seminar also tend to engage in the very in-class behaviors that have been reported to alienate student veterans, such as discussing their opinions on the post 9/11 wars, perhaps without regard for the fact that student veterans in the classroom may have participated in them. 3

5 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine faculty awareness of student veterans in the classroom. We surveyed teaching faculty at UNR and TMCC regarding whether or not they were aware of the presence of student veterans in their classes, and if aware, how well they got to know student veterans and how they perceived student veterans in comparison with other college students. We also investigated how often military-related issues come up in class and how willing faculty would be to make classroom modifications in consideration of student veterans experiences and sensitivities. Finally, we assessed faculty interest in and willingness to participate in student veteran awareness training as well as their preferred mode of training (e.g., in-person vs. online). STUDY SAMPLE Table 1: Survey Participants Campus N % Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Both campuses Total A total of 160 out of 311 selected faculty members participated in this survey in the spring of 2012 for a final response rate of 51%. Nearly 62% of respondents reported teaching at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), 30% of respondents reported teaching at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and 8% taught classes at both campuses (see Table 1). The majority of respondents reported teaching primarily undergraduate classes. Respondents indicated teaching one to six undergraduate courses per semester, with three being the average 4

6 course load. Survey participants were sampled purposively if they taught classes that meet the core curriculum requirements of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) so as to maximize the likelihood that selected respondents would have had the opportunity to teach student veterans. The majority of respondents indicated being faculty for primary departments, such as English and Mathematics. Fifty-one percent of the respondents (n=82) completed the survey online via a Survey Monkey link while the remaining 49% of respondents (n=78) completed a hard copy of the survey. PART I: HOW WELL FACULTY KNOW STUDENT VETERANS Our first objective in conducting this study was to ascertain the proportion of core curriculum teaching faculty who were aware that student veterans were taking their classes. Ninety-five percent of instructors reported being aware of having student veterans in their classroom, suggesting that virtually all teaching faculty know at least one student veteran. Next, we asked how many student veterans the faculty had met via their classes (see Chart 1). Fortytwo percent of faculty members reported knowing more than five student veterans from their courses, followed by 36% of respondents who knew three to five student veterans and 22% of respondents who knew one or two student veterans from class. 5

7 Based on our past research on student veterans (Elliott, Gonzalez & Larsen, 2011, 2012; Gonzalez & Elliott, 2013), we knew that many student veterans prefer not to be identified by their veteran status, so we were curious how faculty members came to know that their students had served in the military. Interestingly, we found that self-identification was the primary mode through which faculty came to know student veterans, either through private conversations (77%), group discussions (61%), written assignments (37%), or by wearing a uniform to class (27%). Only 13% of faculty members reported asking if there were student veterans in their class which is reassuring given that many veterans view their veteran status as private information (see Chart 2). Chart 2: How were Veterans Identified by Faculty? (n=160) Self-Identifed: Private Conversation 76.7% Self-Identified: Group Discussion 60.7% Self-Identified: Written Assignment 36.7% Self-Identified: Wearing a Uniform 27.3% Instructor Asked If They Veterans In the Class 12.7% We asked faculty how well they had gotten to know student veterans (see Chart 3). Most respondents knew student veterans on a fairly superficial basis. Over 72% of faculty members reported getting to know these student veterans (on an individual basis) a little bit or moderately through class. Twenty percent indicated getting to know student veterans quite a bit and only 4.8% of respondents got to know these students very well. 6

8 Chart 3: How Well Have You Gotten to Know Student Veterans on an Individual Basis? (n=146) 36.3% 36.3% 19.9% 2.7% 4.8% Often Sometimes Moderately Quite a bit Very well PART II: MILITARY-RELATED ISSUES IN THE CLASSROOM Because many student veterans have reported feeling offended by the manner in which faculty address military-related issues, such as by feeling demeaned when the faculty directly criticizes US military actions, we asked instructors about the extent to which they dealt with military-related material in the classroom. We found that it is quite unusual for military-related issues to come up during class-time for most instructors. In fact, over 56% of faculty members reported that military-related issues (e.g., discussing recent wars or military history) rarely or never come up in class. Nearly 35% of respondents; however, indicated that these issues sometimes come up; followed by 8.6% of respondents who indicated that these issues often come up in class (see Chart 4). Among faculty who indicated that military-related issues came up in class, we asked about the context in which the issues arose. Over 62% of faculty members reported that militaryrelated issues came up through spontaneous class discussions, followed by instructor-guided 7

9 Chart 4: How often do military-related issues come up in class? (n=152) 34.9% 27.0% 29.6% 8.6% Often Sometimes Rarely Never discussions (44.9%), class lectures (42.7%), student presentations (31.5%), small group class activities, and watching a video in class (20.5%, see Chart 5). Chart 5: In what context do military-related issues come up in class? Spontaneuous discussions (n=79) 62.2% Instructor-guided discussions (n=57) 44.9% Lectures (n=60) 42.7% Student presentation (n=40) 31.5% Small group activities (n=36) 28.3% Watching a video in class (n=26) 20.5% Given that student veterans have reported being troubled by faculty who conveyed explicit disapproval of certain aspects of the military, such as the war in Iraq; we asked the faculty how often they expressed their personal viewpoints on the post-9/11 wars in class. 8

10 According to the respondents to this survey, it is very unusual for faculty to share their opinions on the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nearly 46% of faculty members reported rarely sharing their viewpoint on the post-9/11 wars in class, followed by 28% of respondents who never share their viewpoints, 23% of respondents who sometimes share their viewpoints, and 3.8% of respondents who often share their viewpoints on the post-9/11 wars in class (see Chart 6). Chart 6: How Often do find Yourself Sharing your Viewpoints on the Post-9/11 wars? (n=105) 45.7% 22.9% 27.6% 3.8% Often Sometimes Rarely Never Lastly, we asked faculty if they agreed that faculty should be careful not to criticize the US military in class. Responses to this question were split wherein almost half of faculty thought it was important not to be critical of the military; that is, 48% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that faculty should be careful not to criticize the U.S. military in class whereas the remaining 52% disagreed with that sentiment (see Chart 7). This final finding merits some further discussion regarding expression of criticism of the military. Academic freedom is prized in academia and likely underlies the fact that most instructors think they should be free to be critical of the U.S. military in class. Given that academic freedom is protected, it is likely that 9

11 student veterans can expect to hear the U.S. military criticized in class at some point during their college careers. Thus, we suggest that student veteran sensitivity to faculty criticism of the military be addressed in two ways: (1) sensitivity training for faculty who are so inclined to be made more aware of student veterans; (2) imparting preparedness to student veterans so that faculty opinions can be taken in context and not be interpreted as personally condemning expressions. Chart 7: Faculty should be careful NOT to criticize the US military (n=151) 31.8% 27.2% 19.9% 21.2% Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree In sum, according to the respondents to this survey, military-related issues are relatively unlikely to come up in class. Moreover, instructors are especially unlikely to report their own opinions on the post-9/11 wars in class. However, instructors are split on the broader issue of how careful they should be not to criticize the US military in the classroom. 10

12 PART III: ATTITUDES TOWARD STUDENT VETERANS The next section of our survey assessed how teaching faculty perceive student veterans in comparison with other students. First, we asked questions directed at understanding whether teaching faculty thought student veterans were perceived as more favorable than students in general, in one way or another. Our first question asked whether or not faculty thought that student veterans were especially deserving of a college education because of their military service. Nearly 61% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that student veterans are more deserving of a college education because they served their country. Chart 8: In comparison to student who have not been in the miltary, student veterans are... Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree 11.6% More deserving of a college education because they served their country (n = 138) 13.0% 26.1% 49.3% Have a greater understanding of global issues (n= 145) 16.6% 24.1% 55.9% 3.4% 31.1% More serious about learning (n = 148) 1.4% 14.9% 52.7% Secondly, we asked whether faculty thought student veterans have a greater understanding of global issues given their military service. We found that over 72% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that student veterans have a greater understanding of global issues than other students. Lastly, we asked faculty if they thought student veterans were more serious about learning than other students and found that 83% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that student veterans are more serious about learning than their non-veteran 11

13 counterparts (see Chart 8). In sum, most faculty agreed that students veterans are more deserving of a college education, have a greater understanding of global issues, and are more serious about learning, than students who have not been in the military. Chart 9: In comparison to student who have not been in the miltary, student veterans are... Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree 2.1% More likely to be confrontational with faculty (n= 145) 4.1% 45.5% 48.3% More likely to have psychological problems (n = 141) 5.7% 34.8% 51.1% 8.5% 2.8% Less likely to feel they belong on campus (n=143) 9.8% 39.2% 48.3% Next, we asked faculty if they believed student veterans caused or experienced more problems than other students. First, we asked if faculty thought student veterans were more confrontational with faculty than other students. Nearly 94% of faculty members strongly or somewhat disagreed that student veterans are more likely to be confrontational with faculty, suggesting that student veterans are rarely perceived as being confrontational. In keeping with public concerns that employers are wary of hiring veterans owing to expected problems with post-traumatic stress (Briggs, 2012), we asked faculty if they thought student veterans were more likely to have psychological problems than other students. We found that nearly 60% of faculty members strongly or somewhat disagreed that student veterans are more likely to have psychological problems, suggesting that most faculty are not biased toward assuming that student veterans are more psychologically troubled than college students in general. Lastly, given 12

14 our knowledge that many student veterans report feeling like they do not fit in on campus (Elliott, Gonzalez, & Larsen, 2011), we asked faculty the extent to which they were aware of student veterans feeling this way. We found that 58% of faculty members strongly or somewhat disagreed that student veterans are less likely to feel like they belong on campus than their nonveteran counterparts (see Chart 9), indicating that most faculty are unaware of the extent that student veterans feel alienated on campus. PART IV: ATTITUDES TOWARDS ACCOMODATIONS FOR STUDENT VETERANS In addition to wondering whether instructors perceive differences between student veterans and other students, we also wanted to know if faculty thought they should be held responsible for understanding student veterans or should be expected to alter their teaching style in consideration of student veterans. In response to these questions, we found that over 58% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that faculty should be held responsible for understanding the needs of student veterans (Chart 10). Chart 10: Faculty should be held responsible for understanding the needs of student veterans (n=151) 43.0% 28.5% 13.2% 15.2% Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 13

15 However, nearly 68% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that faculty should not have to adjust their teaching style in consideration of student veterans (Chart 11). Chart 11: Faculty should NOT have to adjust their teaching style in consideration of student veterans (n=152) 36.8% 27.0% 30.9% 5.3% Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Despite the prevailing attitude among faculty that they should not have to adjust their teaching style, most faculty expressed a willingness to work with student veterans regarding specific issues (see Chart 12). For example, some students in the military are called to service during the semester and forced to miss class time or finish course requirements on time. We found that over 92% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that student veterans grades should not be penalized when their military duties interfered with class attendance, suggesting that instructors are very willing to be flexible in such situations. We also found that most teachers thought it was a good idea to keep an eye on student veterans to make sure they were alright. In fact, we found that nearly 56% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that faculty should pay closer attention to student veterans to make sure they are doing ok in class. In addition, most faculty thought it was worthwhile to make mention of special services 14

16 available to veterans on campus in that over 87% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that mentioning services available to student veterans on campus was important. Chart 12: Classroom Modifications (Helpful behaviors) Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree 71.4% Not penalizing students' grades when their military duty interferes with being in class (n= 154) 5.8% 20.8% 1.9% Paying closer attention to student veterans to make sure they are doing OK in class (n = 152) 13.8% 29.6% 42.1% 14.5% 53.0% Mentioning services available to veterans on campus (n= 149) 10.7% 34.2% 2.0% PART V: ATTITUDES TOWARDS UNIVERSITY-LEVEL ACCOMODATIONS In addition to asking faculty the extent to which they would make special accommodations for student veterans, we were interested in learning what they thought should be done on the university level. We found that nearly 78% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that the university should offer a one-credit course for incoming veterans to smooth their transition to college life. Additionally, 64% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that the university should add more services on campus for student veterans. Over 67% of faculty members strongly or somewhat agreed that the university should be expected to grant transfer credits for knowledge acquired while in the military (see Chart 13). 15

17 Chart 13: Overall Campus Setting Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree The university should offer a one-credit course for incoming veterans to smooth their transition to college life (n = 150) 4.0% 18.7% 28.8% 48.7% The university should add more services on campus for veterans (e.g., lounge) (n=147) 7.5% 15.0% 27.9% 49.7% The university should be expected to grant transfer credits for knowledge acquired while in the military (n = 151) 7.3% 23.2% 25.2% 44.4% The university community should not be expected to do anything extra for students because they are veterans (n=154) 1.9% 14.9% 31.2% 51.9% Finally, over 83% of faculty members strongly or somewhat disagreed that the university community should not be expected to do anything extra for student veterans (see Chart 13). PART VI: FACULTY WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN SPECIAL TRAINING In order to gauge how many instructors would be willing to participate in faculty awareness training regarding special issues related to student veterans, we asked them directly about a hypothetical voluntary training seminar. Over half of faculty members indicated that it was very or somewhat likely that they would participate in a voluntary seminar on the needs of student veterans (see Chart 14). Excluding faculty members who indicated that they were very unlikely to participate in a voluntary seminar on the needs of student veterans, we asked the remaining faculty which type of seminar format they would prefer. Nearly 40% of faculty members indicated that they 16

18 Chart 14: How likely or unlikely would you be to take part in a voluntary seminar on the needs of student veterans? (n=154) 29.9% 28.6% 22.1% 19.5% Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely preferred an in-person seminar, 30% of faculty indicated that they would prefer an online seminar and 29% of faculty indicated that they had no preference between in-person or online options (see Chart 15). Chart 15: If a seminar was offered, what type of format would you prefer? (n=123) 0.8% 30.1% 39.8% In-person seminar (n=49) Online seminar (n=36) Both (n=37) 29.3% Other (n=1) Not surprisingly, faculty who were willing to participate in a training seminar were significantly more likely to indicate that they had a connection to the military (e.g., family or 17

19 friends who had served in the military) than those who were unwilling to participate in the training. Other differences between faculty members who reported that they would or would not be willing to participate in a training seminar also emerged (See Table 2). Faculty who were more willing to participate in a training seminar were also more likely to indicate that they would mention campus services in class, were more likely to pay close attention to student veterans to make sure they are okay, were more likely to agree that faculty should be responsible for understanding the student veterans needs, and were less likely to agree that faculty should not adjust their teaching styles. Faculty members that were willing to participate in a training seminar were also less likely to report that military-related issues came up in class or that they would share their views on the post 9/11 wars in class, in comparison to their counterparts who were unwilling to participate in the training. Table 2. Willingness to participate in a training seminar Variable Willing to participate in training seminar Unwilling to participate in training seminar Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Likely to mention campus services M = 3.53 (0.66)** 1 M = 3.19 (0.83) Likely to pay closer attention to student veterans to make sure they are doing ok Faculty should be responsible for understanding the needs of student veterans M = 2.74 (0.79)** M = 2.34 (0.98) M = 2.86 (0.88)*** M = 2.33 (0.83) Faculty should not adjust their teaching styles M = 2.71 (0.93)*** M = 3.18 (0.78) Frequency of military-related issues coming up in class Faculty likely share their views on the post 9/11 wars M = 2.47 (0.91)*** M = 3.11 (0.93) M = 2.86 (0.85)* M = 3.21 (0.70) 1 Significance levels are denoted as follows: * p<.05; ** p<.01; and *** p<

20 PART VII: DIFFERNTIATING BETWEEN UNR AND TMCC FACULTY When comparing UNR and TMCC faculty members, the combination of having more frequent interactions with student veterans and having a connection to the U.S. military (e.g., having served in the military) appears to make TMCC faculty members more culturally sensitive to student veterans and their needs. TMCC faculty members were more likely to mention campus services to veterans in class, to not penalize student veterans for military duties that conflict with classroom attendance, to agree that the university should grant credits for military-related knowledge and expertise, and to be open to participating in a voluntary training seminar on the needs of student veterans, in comparison to their UNR counterparts (See Table 3). These findings parallel research that suggests that community college faculty members have more favorable interactions with their students than university faculty (Bauer & Bauer, 1994; Townsend, 1995; Vaala, 1991). Table 3. Differences between UNR and TMCC Faculty Variable UNR Faculty TMCC Faculty Number of student veterans you know from teaching class Mean (SD) Mean (SD) M = 1.95 (0.84) M = 2.34 (0.73)** 2 Likely to mention campus services M = 3.02 (0.88) M = 3.50 (0.67)*** Agree not to penalize students grades when their military duties interfere with being in class Agree that the university should grant transfer credits for knowledge acquired while in the military Willing to participate in a training seminar on the needs of student veterans M = 3.40 (0.78) M = 3.73 (0.57)** M = 2.58 (0.79) M = 2.94 (0.87)* M = 2.14 (1.04) M = 2.71 (0.99)** 2 Significance levels are denoted as follows: * p<.05; ** p<.01; and *** p<

21 PART VIII: CORRELATES OF CONTACT WITH STUDENT VETERANS Faculty members who reported knowing student veterans well were more likely to endorse veteran-friendly behaviors, such as being less likely to penalize students grades when their military duty interfered with class and more likely to participate in a training seminar about the needs of student veterans. These faculty members were also more likely to have served or have a family member or friend who had served in the U.S. military. Interestingly, however, faculty members who reported not knowing student veterans well were more likely to indicate that military-related issues come up in class and that they were more likely to share their views on the post 9/11 wars. The latter findings suggest that the small number of faculty members who do not know student veterans well may be in the most need of a training seminar as militaryrelated issues appear to come up in class quite often. Because these faculty members do not have frequent contact with veterans, they may be unaware that their behaviors could be perceived by student veterans as insensitive. Table 4. Differences between Faculty who knew Students well and those who did not Variable Agree not to penalize students grades when their military duties interfere with being in class Willing to participate in a training seminar on the needs of student veterans Frequency of military-related issues coming up in class Faculty likely share their views on the post 9/11 wars Faculty who knew student veterans somewhat or very well Mean (SD) Faculty who knew student veterans a little bit or not at all Mean (SD) M = 3.83 (0.38)** 3 M = 3.58 (0.70) M = 3.00 (1.00)** M = 2.48 (0.98) M = 2.25 (0.91) M = 2.90 (0.95)*** M = 2.69 (0.78) M = 3.05 (0.81)* 3 Significance levels are denoted as follows: * p<.05; ** p<.01; and *** p<

22 CONCLUSION In conclusion, UNR and TMCC instructors of core classes who chose to complete this survey tend to have quite positive attitudes toward student veterans and are willing to help them. However, with regard to raising faculty awareness of issues specific to student veterans, almost half of the faculty respondents indicate that they would not voluntarily attend such a seminar. Moreover, those who are least willing to take part in a seminar are also less likely to be accommodating to student veterans, and more likely to share their views on the post 9/11 wars in class. The same is true of faculty who do not know student veterans very well. Thus, it appears that a minority of faculty may be unconsciously contributing to student veterans pervasive sense of alienation on these college campuses by discussing military issues in class, including their personal opinions on the post 9/11 wars. These faculty members may at best be unaware of the student veterans, or at worst be insensitive to the presence of student veterans in their classroom. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Campuses throughout NSHE should heed the warnings of this survey and reach out to faculty who are relatively unaware of student veterans on campus, and who may be insensitive to these veterans in their teaching style. Each academic department should have one designated faculty member who has received basic training in how to facilitate student veteran success, and who can assist in any conflicts or misunderstandings that may arise. Ultimately, it would be ideal for all teaching faculty in NSHE to have some understanding of student veterans so as to minimize on-campus experiences that increase student veterans feelings of alienation. Such efforts would help to ensure that student veterans have the same chance to succeed in college as anyone else, and to go forward with their lives with all the benefits of a college education. 21

23 REFERENCES Bauer, P. K, & Bauer, K. W. (1994). The community college as an academic bridge: Academic and personal concerns of community college students before and after transferring to a four-year institution, College and University, Briggs, B. (2012, October). Report: Employers seemingly scared of PTSD risks among workplace warriors. NBC News. Retrieve October 2012 from Elliott, M., Gonzalez, C., & Larsen, B. (2011). U.S. military veterans transition to college: Combat, PTSD, and alienation on campus. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48 (3), Elliott, M., Gonzalez, C., & Larsen, B. (2012). The state of student veterans in the Nevada system of higher education. Retrieved September 2012 from Gonzalez, C. & Elliott, M. (2013). Student veterans speak up: A focus group study. Retrieved April 2013 from Report.pdf Townsend, B. (1995). Community college transfer students: A case study of survival. The Review of Higher Education, 18(2), Vaala, L. D. (1991). Making the transition: Influences on transfer students. NASPA Journal, 28(4),

24 APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY Contact List and Recruitment A contact list of instructors was compiled by reviewing TMCC and UNR course schedules for the spring 2012 semester. Faculty who were scheduled to teach one or more core general education requirement classes for all majors were invited to participate in the survey. These faculty members were targeted to be surveyed because they have the highest probability of interacting with student veterans as all students are required to take general education requirements during their first two years of college. Contact information (e.g., addresses and office mail codes) for faculty was obtained through online directories or by contacting campus departments directly. Selected faculty received an invitation introducing the researchers and including an Information Sheet describing the purpose of the survey, inclusion criteria, risks/benefits, and contact information for the principal investigator (PI). In order to protect the privacy of faculty, all s were sent blind carbon copy ( bcc ). Approximately one week later, faculty members received a hard copy of the survey, self-addressed return envelope, and Information Sheet through campus mail. Respondents were also provided with a Survey Monkey link if they preferred to participate online. Approximately two weeks later, faculty members received a reminder address with a Survey Monkey link to encourage faculty to participate online. Approximately two weeks later, faculty members received another hard copy of the survey, selfaddressed return envelope, Information Sheet, and link to the Survey Monkey survey link through campus mail. Approximately two weeks later, faculty members received the final reminder. Data collection took place between February and May The final response rate was 51% (160/311). 23

25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was supported by a generous grant from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and was greatly enhanced by their support, especially from Susan Dudley (Executive Director) and Alex Ingrams (SPSSI policy coordinator). We would like to thank the faculty members themselves of the University of Nevada, Reno and Truckee Meadows Community College who gave of their time to share their experience in order to help all assess how to better assist them when teaching student veterans. 24