See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283347202

Influencing Academic Motivation: The Effects of

Student-Faculty Interaction

Article in Journal of College Student Development October 2016

DOI: 10.1353/csd.2016.0080

CITATIONS READS

3 135

4 authors, including:

Teniell L. Trolian Jana M. Hanson

University at Albany, The State University of Ne South Dakota State University
19 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ernest Pascarella
University of Iowa
248 PUBLICATIONS 14,305 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Differential Effects of Internship Participation on End-of-Fourth-Year GPA by Demographic and

Institutional Characteristics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Teniell L. Trolian on 20 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ,QIOXHQFLQJ$FDGHPLF0RWLYDWLRQ7KH(IIHFWVRI6WXGHQW)DFXOW\,QWHUDFWLRQ

7HQLHOO/7UROLDQ(OL]DEHWK$-DFK-DQD0+DQVRQ(UQHVW73DVFDUHOOD

-RXUQDORI&ROOHJH6WXGHQW'HYHORSPHQW9ROXPH1XPEHU2FWREHU
SS$UWLFOH

3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH
KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by State University of New York at Albany (9 Nov 2016 20:30 GMT)
Influencing Academic Motivation: The Effects
of StudentFaculty Interaction
Teniell L. Trolian Elizabeth A. Jach Jana M. Hanson Ernest T. Pascarella

Using data from the Wabash National Study
of Liberal Arts Education, we examined the
influence of studentfaculty interactions on
student academic motivation over 4 years of
college. Results suggest that several forms of
studentfaculty interaction, such as quality of
faculty contact, frequency of faculty contact,
research with faculty, personal discussion with
faculty, and out-of-class interactions with faculty,
have a positive influence on academic motivation,
even when controlling for a host of student
background characteristics and institutional
characteristics, including a precollege measure of
academic motivation.
Prior research has suggested that academic
motivation has a positive influence on students
academic success in higher education (D.
Allen, 1999; J. Allen, Robbins, Casillas, &
Oh, 2008; Eppler & Harju, 1997; Linnen
brink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2004;
Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992). Similarly, students
interactions with faculty members, both
within and outside of the classroom, have
been shown to enhance students learning
experiences and success in college (Astin, 1993;
Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991,
2005). While prior research has evaluated
the relationship between studentfaculty
interactions and academic motivation (Jaasma
& Koper, 1999; Komarraju, Musulkin,
& Bhattacharya, 2010), few studies have
examined this relationship using a multi-
institutional, longitudinal research design
that includes a precollege control measure of
student academic motivation. Furthermore,
few studies have examined how sex may
moderate this relationship. Using data from
the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts
Education (WNS), the researchers examined
the relationship between several types of
studentfaculty interaction and students
academic motivation at the end of college, as
well as whether students sex was a moderator
of this relationship.
Review of Literature
StudentFaculty Interactions
Many researchers have studied the outcomes
of formal and informal studentfaculty
interactions. Earlier studies, such as Pascarella
and Terenzini (1978), found that informal
studentfaculty relationships accounted for
higher levels of academic performance, as
well as intellectual and personal development
among first-year students. Similarly, Pascarella,
Terenzini, and Hibel (1978) found that,
through nonclassroom interactions, faculty

Teniell L. Trolian is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies at the
University at Albany, State University of New York. Elizabeth A. Jach is Interim Assistant Director / Compliance
Manager for the Human Subjects Office at the University of Iowa. Jana M. Hanson is Director of Institutional
Assessment at South Dakota State University. Ernest T. Pascarella is Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership
Studies and Mary Louise Petersen Chair in Higher Education at the University of Iowa. Research funding through
a grant from the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.

810 Journal of College Student Development

Influencing Academic Motivation
had an incremental influence on students
motivation for academic achievement over
and above the typical predictors of academic
performance (p.459). Endo and Harpel
(1982) also observed that students informal
contact with faculty members was positively
associated with cognitive gains in college and
with student satisfaction, and Woodside,
Wong, and Wiest (1999) found that student
faculty interactions influenced academic
achievement and scholastic self-concept
among undergraduate students. Umbach
and Wawrzynski (2005) also explored the
relationship between faculty practices and
student levels of engagement, finding that
students reported higher levels of engagement
and learning at colleges where faculty members
interacted more often with students.
More recent research on studentfaculty
interactions has also examined differences by
race, gender, and perception of approach
ability. Cho and Auger (2013) found that
relationship quality indicators, such as trust,
satisfaction, commitment, and mutuality,
were associated with perceived relationship
investment. Tatum, Schwartz, Schimmoeller,
and Perry (2013) investigated the differences
between male and female professors in a
coeducational classroom; students taught by
female professors participated more frequently.
Furthermore, Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini,
Reason, and Lutovsky Quaye (2010) examined
faculty approachability and facultystudent
interaction outside the classroom, suggesting
that student characteristics may influence the
quality of studentfaculty interactions, rather
than individual faculty members variability.
Research on studentfaculty interactions
has also focused on the frequency of inter
actions, the quality of interactions, and
students overall satisfaction with their
interactions. Cotton and Wilson (2006),
in a study of studentfaculty interactions,
explored contact between faculty and students,
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 811
finding that most students had minimal
out-of-class contact with faculty and did not
see clear benefits to increasing their level of
contact. Kuh and Hu (2001) reported that
the frequency of studentfaculty interactions
increased over 4 years of college, and individual
effort put forth by students mediated the
influence of studentfaculty interactions.
Furthermore, Anaya and Cole (2001) found
that the quality of relationships with faculty,
including academic and personal relationships,
was positively associated with students
academic performance.
Academic Motivation
Psychologists have proposed a number of
theories of motivation, including instinct
theory, incentive theory, arousal theory, and
humanistic theory. While motivation is often
considered a psychological phenomenon,
an academic motivation scale introduced
by Vallerand et al. (1992) operationalized
motivation within an educational setting.
The scale involved seven subscales, measuring
three types of intrinsic motivation (to know,
to accomplish things, and to experience stimu
lation), three types of extrinsic motivation
(external, introjected [or internalized], and
identified [an individuals self-perception of
identity]), and amotivation (an individuals
view failing to connect actions with outcomes).
This conceptualization of academic motivation
guides the current study.
Academic motivation has been defined
broadly in the education literature as a
students desire, effort, and persistence related
to achieving academic success, and researchers
have evaluated it and its influence on college
outcomes (D. Allen, 1999; Brouse, Basch,
LeBlanc, McKnight, & Lei, 2010; Eppler
& Harju, 1997; Guiffrida, Lynch, Wall, &
Abel, 2013; Pascarella, Wolniak, Pierson, &
Flowers, 2004; Reynolds & Weigand, 2010).
Most notably, research that has explored

students academic motivation during college
has suggested that female students tend to
have higher levels of academic motivation
and that it declines during college (Brouse
etal., 2010). This latter finding suggests that
academic motivation can change and may in
fact be malleable. Research has also shown that
academic motivation has a positive effect on
retention and persistence in college. Guiffrida
etal. (2013) found that students motivation
predicted higher grade point averages and
intentions to persist. D. Allen (1999) also
noted that racial/ethnic minority students
who had higher levels of motivation were more
likely to persist to their second year. Reynolds
and Weigand (2010) found that academic
motivation was associated with resilience and
helping students cope with stress. Research has
also examined academic motivation among
traditional and nontraditional college students,
finding that nontraditional students had
higher endorsements of learning goals related
to their academic work than their traditional
peers (Eppler & Harju, 1997). Furthermore,
Pascarella et al. (2004) found that academic
motivation and effort influenced plans to
pursue a graduate degree. This and other
research suggests that academic motivation
plays a significant role in influencing several
college outcomes.
StudentFaculty Interaction and Its
Influence on Academic Motivation
Research has also evaluated the link between
studentfaculty interactions and academic
motivation and engagement (Jaasma &
Koper, 1999; Komarraju etal., 2010; Rugutt
& Chemosit, 2009). Studies have pointed
to the malleability of academic motivation,
suggesting that academic motivation can be
influenced through interventions such as
increased studentfaculty interaction. Jaasma
and Koper (1999), for instance, investigated
the relationship between studentfaculty
812 Journal of College Student Development
Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
communication outside of class and student
motivation. Results indicated that student
motivation was positively associated with out-
of-class communication. However, the study
also found that during informal contact with
a faculty member, discussing coursework was
negatively associated with student motivation,
suggesting that studentfaculty interactions
outside of class about a problem may diminish
trust and motivation in the student.
Rugutt and Chemosit (2009) also explored
the influence of studentfaculty interactions
on students academic motivation, finding that
studentfaculty interaction was a significant
predictor of student motivation. In addition,
Komarraju et al. (2010) investigated several
types of studentfaculty interaction as pre
dictors of academic self-concept, academic
motivation, and academic achievement.
Forms of studentfaculty interaction explored
included career guidance, campus inter
action, approachability, accessibility, respectful
interactions, caring attitude, and connected
ness. Results suggested that intrinsic motivation
was positively associated with several aspects
of studentfaculty interaction, and extrinsic
motivation positively associated with career
guidance and respect. Such findings suggest the
malleability of academic motivation and the
potential for studentfaculty interactions to
enhance students motivation during college.
Sex as a Moderator of
CollegeOutcomes
Research has also examined sex differences as
they relate to a variety of college outcomes.
Recent publications have studied sex differ
ences related to student engagement (Tison,
Bateman, & Culver, 2011), early career earning
(Hu & Wolniak, 2013), and stereotype threat
(Rydell, Rydell, & Boucher, 2010). Some
researchers have questioned whether examin
ing sex differences is still a worthwhile pursuit
for current research, especially as studies have
Influencing Academic Motivation
shown that differences among men and women
tend to be greater than differences between
men and women (Tavris, 1992). Sax (2008),
a leading researcher on gender differences
among college students, argued, Focusing
our attention on gender gaps- no matter how
small- may lead us to overstate sex differences,
thereby fueling public misconceptions about
differences between male and females (p.9).
Sax, however, also argued that examining
gender differences is important to understand
college students and that results should be
considered thoughtfully to prevent fueling
misconceptions and overgeneralizations.
The literature on studentfaculty inter
actions has illuminated some differences
by students sex. Sax, Bryant, and Harper
(2005) found that women reported more
frequent and positive interactions with faculty
and greater levels of emotional support and
encouragement to attend graduate school.
Conversely, men reported more negative
reactions to faculty than women along with
higher rates of challenging professors ideas
and feelings that their comments were not
taken seriously by faculty. Kim and Sax (2009)
also demonstrated that research with faculty
predicted higher college grade point averages,
higher degree aspirations, and larger gains in
critical thinking and communication for men
and women. In addition, they found that
males more frequently engaged in research
with faculty members and that completing
a research project with a faculty member
increased womens sense of campus belonging.
Researchers have also studied sex differ
ences in relation to students motivation to
achieve in college. Sax (2008) found that
support from faculty, challenging professors
ideas in class, and receiving honest feedback
from instructors enhanced students self-
assessed drive to achieve. The author also found
that women were more motivated to achieve
when there were more female professors on
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 813
campus, and mens worries about financing
their education detracted from their drive to
achieve. These differences suggest the need
to continue to examine how experiences in
college, such as interactions with faculty, may
affect men and women differently.
Purpose
This study contributes to the literature on
these topics by focusing on future research
suggestions offered in prior research. Sax
et al. (2005) suggested looking at other
forms of studentfaculty interactions, such
as out-of-class interactions, and Cotton and
Wilson (2006) recommended evaluating
studentfaculty interactions over time. In
addition, Saxs (2008) focus on moderating
effects, or how specific experiences in college
affect certain students in different ways,
suggested that future research expand our
understanding of college impact by uncovering
which types of students benefit from which
college experiences (p.4). In this study the
researchers examine whether studentfaculty
interactions influenced students academic
motivation at the end of the fourth year
of college and the moderating effects of
sex in evaluating the relationship between
studentfaculty interactions and academic
motivation. Specifically, the researchers address
the following research questions: (1) To what
extent is there a relationship between several
types of studentfaculty interaction and
students academic motivation at the end of
the fourth year of college, when controlling
for precollege academic motivation? (2)
To what extent is sex a moderator of the
relationship between each type of student
faculty interaction and students academic
motivation at the end of the fourth year
of college, when controlling for precollege
academic motivation?

Theoretical Framework
Many researchers have examined the effects
of student characteristics, experiences, and
aspects of the institutional environment
on college outcomes (Astin, 1970a, 1970b;
Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). This study was specifically guided by
Pascarellas (1985) college impact framework
for assessing change during college. The
framework included consideration for both
direct and indirect effects of college to fully
assess student learning and development that
might lead to college outcomes. Pascarellas
framework indicated several sets of variables
that should be included in research that
attempts to assess change or development
in college, including students background/
precollege characteristics, the institutional
structure and environment, interactions
with agents of socialization (such as faculty,
staff, or peers), and the quality of student
effort. Selection of variables for the models
in this study was based on Pascarellas college
outcomes framework to more clearly isolate the
extent to which studentfaculty interactions
contribute to students academic motivation
during college. To accomplish this, the
researchers included a number of students
background and precollege characteristics
(such as sex, race/ethnicity, level of parent
education, precollege academic ability, pre
college academic motivation, precollege need
for cognition, precollege attitudes toward
literacy, precollege degree aspirations, and
involvement in high school activities), the
institutional structure environment (such as
institution type), interactions with agents of
socialization (such as quality of faculty contact,
frequency of faculty contact, research with
faculty members, personal discussion with
faculty, and out-of-class interactions with
faculty), and the quality of student effort (such
as college grades, major field of study, time
814 Journal of College Student Development
Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
spent in cocurricular involvement activities,
and time spent socializing and relaxing).
Method
Data and Sampling
Data used in this study are from the WNS,
a longitudinal, multi-institutional study
of college outcomes. The WNS sampled
undergraduate students at 17 four-year col
leges and universities located in 11 different
states from four regions of the United States:
Northeast/Middle-Atlantic, Southeast,
Midwest, and Pacific Coast. According to the
Carnegie Classification of Institutions (2015),
3 of the participating institutions were research
universities, 3 were regional universities
that did not grant doctorate degrees, and
11 were liberal arts colleges. Since the study
focused on the influence of liberal arts college
experiences, the researchers purposely selected
an overrepresentation of liberal arts colleges.
Participants in the sample for this study
included first-year, full-time undergraduate
students at each of the 4-year institutions
participating in the 2006 to 2010 cohort.
After using listwise deletion to account
for missing data, the sample included 1,803
participants. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics
of the sample. A total of 671 participants
(37.2%) were male and 1,132 (62.8%) were
female. The majority of participants were
White/Caucasian (82.1%). Slightly more than
half of the participants (51.7%) indicated
that at least one parent had a 4-year degree.
The average ACT score in the sample was
27. The majority of participants (82.8%)
had postbaccalaureate degree aspirations.
Most of the participants (77.5%) majored
in a non-STEM field of study. Because this
study oversampled liberal arts colleges and
universities, a majority (54.5%) of participants
attended a liberal arts college or university. A
majority (77.1%) of the sample indicated that
Influencing Academic Motivation

cumulative grades in college were B+ or higher. at the first data collection point included
Correlations between each variable included in students critical thinking, need for cognition,
the model and the dependent variable, student academic motivation, positive attitude toward
academic motivation at the end of the fourth literacy, moral reasoning, openness to diversity
year of college, ranged from .01 to .44. Please and challenge, socially responsible leadership,
see Table 2 for a complete correlation matrix and psychological well-being. At the second
for all variables. data collection point, students responded to
The WNS collected data at three separate items about their college experiences, and
points over 4 years. The study assessed students received a second set of identical assessment
in the late summer or early fall of 2006 (at the measures (as a first-year of college posttest).
beginning of their first year of college), again Finally, at the third data collection point,
in the late spring of 2007 (at the end of their students again responded to items about their
first year of college), and finally in the late college experiences and received a third set
spring of 2010 (at the end of their fourth year of identical assessment measures as a 4-year
of college). In fall 2006, student background posttest. Each data collection took participants
data and a set of assessment measures (as a approximately 90 to 100 minutes to complete,
pretest) were collected. Outcomes measured and students received a stipend of $50 at each
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics (N=1,803)
Variable M SD Range
Sex (Male) 0.37 0.48 0.00 to 1.00
Race/ethnicity (students of color) 0.18 0.38 0.00 to 1.00
Parent education (4 year degree) 0.52 0.50 0.00 to 1.00
Precollege ability (ACT composite) 0.00 1.00 3.13 to 2.04
Precollege academic motivation 0.00 1.00 3.45 to 2.60
Precollege need for cognition 0.00 1.00 3.90 to 2.50
Precollege attitudes toward literacy 0.00 1.00 0.327 to 2.29
Precollege degree aspirations 0.83 0.38 0.00 to 1.00
High school involvement 0.00 1.00 3.66 to 2.41
Attended liberal arts college 0.55 0.50 0.00 to 1.00
College grades (B+ or higher) 0.77 0.42 0.00 to 1.00
STEM major 0.22 0.42 0.00 to 1.00
Time spent socializing/relaxing 0.00 1.00 1.86 to 2.57
Cocurricular involvement 0.00 1.00 1.13 to 3.22
Quality of faculty contact 0.00 1.00 3.70 to 1.27
Frequency of faculty contact 0.00 1.00 2.24 to 2.31
Research with faculty 0.34 0.48 0.00 to 1.00
Personal discussion with faculty 0.00 1.00 1.32 to 0.76
Out-of-class interactions with faculty 0.00 1.00 4.53 to 0.93
Fourth-year academic motivation 0.00 1.00 3.92 to 2.60

Note. All continuous variables are standardized.

October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 815

 Table 2.

816
Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1. Sex (male) 1.00
2. Race/ethnicity (students of color) .03 1.00
3. Parent education (4 year degree) .03 .13 1.00
4. Precollege ability (ACT composite) .06 .28 .13 1.00
5. Precollege academic motivation .09 .07 .05 .03 1.00
6. Precollege need for cognition .03 .05 .00 .28 .50 1.00
7. Precollege attitudes toward
.10 .01 .03 .21 .41 .53 1.00
literacy
8. Precollege degree aspirations .03 .03 .05 .17 .14 .14 .10 1.00
9. High school involvement .24 .06 .01 .07 .32 .14 .17 .17 1.00
10. Attended liberal arts college .06 .06 .04 .17 .06 .07 .09 .08 .08 1.00
11. College grades (B+ or higher) .06 .16 .08 .30 .04 .14 .12 .06 .10 .02 1.00
12. STEM major .11 .02 .01 .13 .14 .12 .01 .12 .02 .02 .01 1.00
13. Time spent socializing/relaxing .15 .04 .02 .17 .14 .06 .05 .02 .07 .04 .00 .02 1.00
14. Cocurricular involvement .12 .04 .01 .03 .01 .03 .05 .04 .07 .15 .01 .01 .01 1.00
15. Quality of faculty contact .02 .07 .02 .04 .21 .19 .15 .04 .19 .22 .18 .01 .08 .12 1.00
16. Frequency of faculty contact .02 .03 .06 .09 .26 .18 .14 .06 .25 .27 .08 .01 .13 .19 .58 1.00
17. Research with faculty .01 .02 .06 .12 .20 .22 .12 .10 .11 .07 .14 .23 .09 .09 .23 .28 1.00
18. Personal discussion with faculty .02 .05 .01 .09 .05 .09 .07 .01 .08 .18 .12 .04 .06 .07 .44 .29 .10 1.00
19. Out-of-class interactions with
.09 .01 .02 .01 .15 .15 .17 .04 .12 .18 .04 .06 .08 .04 .39 .39 .13 .17 1.00
faculty
20. Fourth-year academic motivation .05 .03 .01 .03 .40 .28 .23 .10 .18 .14 .16 .12 .24 .02 .44 .41 .25 .22 .22 1.00

Journal of College Student Development

Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
Influencing Academic Motivation
assessment point for their participation. Of
the original sample of 4,193 students, 2,212
participated in the spring 2010 follow-up, for
a response rate of 52.8%.
Variables
Appendix A includes detailed descriptions of
the variables included in this study. Student
academic motivation at the end of the fourth
year of college was the dependent variable of
interest. Academic motivation was measured
using a mean-based, eight-item scale (=.74)
designed to measure students intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation toward academic pursuits.
Participants were asked to select the number
that indicates the extent to which you agree/
disagree with each of the following statements
about your views or perspectives in general.
Scale items include (a)I am willing to work
hard in a course to learn the material even if it
wont lead to a higher grade; (b)When I do
well on a test, it is usually because I am well-
prepared, not because the test is easy; (c)In
high school [pretest] or college [posttest], I
frequently did more reading in a class than
was required simply because it interested
me; (d)In high school [pretest] or college
[posttest], I frequently talked to my teachers
outside of class about ideas presented during
class; (e)Getting the best grades I can is very
important to me; (f )I enjoy the challenge of
learning complicated new material; (g)My
academic experiences will be [pretest] or have
been [posttest] the most important part of
college; and (h) My academic experiences
will be [pretest] or have been [posttest] the
most enjoyable part of college. Response
options included strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree, and strongly disagree.
In this study the researchers used five
measures of students experiences with faculty
to measure studentfaculty interaction, each
measured at the end of the fourth year of
college. These included quality of student
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 817
faculty contact, frequency of faculty contact,
whether students worked on a research project
with a faculty member, whether students had
discussed a personal problem or concern with
a faculty member, and whether faculty were
willing to spend time outside of class to discuss
issues of interest and importance to students.
Control variables in this study included
background/precollege characteristics such
as participants sex, race/ethnicity, precollege
ability (ACT or SAT equivalent score), parents
highest level of formal education, educational
degree aspirations, and involvement in high
school activities. In addition, all models
controlled for measures of precollege need for
cognition, precollege attitudes toward literacy,
and precollege academic motivation to control
for potential elements that might also influence
participants outcomes at the end of college,
as recommended by Pascarella (1985) and
Pascarella and Blaich (2013). Pascarella and
Blaich emphasized the use of relevant pretest
measures in college outcomes research to
reduce the potential for biased results, stating
that irrespective of the sophistication of the
analytic procedures ... used, controlling for
the pretest was essential to achieving relatively
unbiased estimates of the effects various
experiences had on any dependent variable
(p.13). Controlling for participants precollege
need for cognition, attitudes toward literacy
activities, and academic motivation, then, may
help to account for other individual student
attitudes toward learning and academic
activities that could also influence participants
academic motivation at the end of college.
Indeed, the respective correlations between
precollege need for cognition (r=.28),
precollege attitudes toward literacy activities
(r=.23), and precollege academic motivation
(r=.40) and the outcome variable, fourth-
year academic motivation, are noteworthy
and statistically significant. Moreover, both
precollege need for cognition and precollege

attitudes toward literacy activities were
significant predictors of all of the independent
studentfaculty interaction variables, with an
average correlation of .15. Consequently, as
precollege need for cognition and precollege
attitudes toward literacy activities predicted
not only the dependent variable but also
the independent studentfaculty interaction
variables, their representation in the regression
models was important. They were potential
selection effect variables whose absence in the
prediction model could potentially bias the
estimates of studentfaculty interaction on
fourth-year academic motivation (Schneider,
Carnoy, Kilpatrick, Schmidt, & Shavelson,
2007). Other control variables included
whether participants attended a liberal arts
college, whether participants majored in
a STEM field, participants self-reported
cumulative grades, time spent relaxing and
socializing, and time spent engaging in
cocurricular activities and involvement.
Analyses
This study examined the change in participants
reported levels of academic motivation at the
beginning of the first year of college and the end
of the fourth year of college. Unstandardized
values on the academic motivation scale
at the beginning of the first year of college
ranged from 1.75 to 5.00; fewer than 1% of
students reported scaled scores of 2.00 or less,
15% reported scores between 2.01 and 3.00,
63% reported scaled scores between 3.01 and
4.00, and 21% reported scores between 4.01
and 5.00. Values on the academic motivation
scale at the end of the fourth year of college
ranged from 1.00 to 5.00; 2% of students
reported scaled scores of 2.00 or less, 27%
reported scores between 2.01 and 3.00, 57%
reported scores between 3.01 and 4.00, and
14% reported scores between 4.01 and 5.00.
These analyses, consistent with prior research
(Brouse et al., 2010), suggest that students
818 Journal of College Student Development
Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
academic motivation trends downward during
college, illuminating the potential importance
of interventions that may augment students
academic motivation during college.
The researchers used ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression to estimate the effects of each
type of studentfaculty interaction on a scaled
measure of students academic motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college. In
Models I to V, the researchers considered
each studentfaculty interaction variable
separately to examine the influence of each
type of interaction on fourth-year academic
motivation. In Model VI, they considered all
studentfaculty interaction variables together
to evaluate the influence of several measures
of studentfaculty interaction at once. In
addition, through interaction variables the
researchers evaluated whether the relationship
between perceptions of studentfaculty
interactions on academic motivation was
moderated by students sex (i.e., Sex Quality
of Faculty Contact, Sex Frequency of Faculty
Contact, Sex Research with Faculty, Sex
Personal Discussion with Faculty, and Sex
Out-of-Class Interactions With Faculty).
The researchers performed all data analyses
with Stata and standardized all continuous
variables prior to the OLS regression analysis.
In addition, for Models I to V they utilized a
Stata clustering command (SVY) to account
for potential institution-level differences.
Analyses clustered responses by institution
to account for the possibility that students
attending the same institution are more similar
than those attending different institutions.
For Model VI the researchers were not able
to utilize this clustering command due to the
number of variables included in the model
exceeding the number of institutions in the
sample; consequently, they employed a more
stringent alpha level (.01) to reduce the
likelihood of rejecting a true null hypothesis.
Finally, analyses included a weighting
Influencing Academic Motivation
algorithm to adjust for potential response bias
by sex, race/ethnicity, and academic ability in
the sample of students. Using information
provided by each institution on sex, race/
ethnicity, and ACT score (or appropriate
SAT equivalent), follow-up participants
were weighted up to each institutions first-
year undergraduate population by sex (male
or female), race/ethnicity (Asian or Pacific
Islander, Black/African American, Hispanic/
Latino/a, Native American, or White), and
ACT (or equivalent score) quartile. While
applying weights in this manner has the effect
of making the overall sample more similar to
the population from which it was drawn, it
cannot completely adjust for nonresponse bias.
Results
The first research question in this study sought
to evaluate whether a relationship existed
between several types of studentfaculty
interaction and students academic motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college. Table
3 summarizes the OLS regression estimates
of each studentfaculty interaction variable
(i.e., quality of faculty contact, frequency
of faculty contact, research with faculty,
personal discussions with faculty, and out-of-
class interactions with faculty) on academic
motivation. When considered separately, all
studentfaculty interaction variables had a
positive and statistically significant influence
on academic motivation.
Controlling for a variety of background
characteristics, quality of studentfaculty
contact was positively associated with academic
motivation (=.30, p<.001, R 2 =.31), Finally, the researchers evaluated whether
indicating that a 1 SD increase in the quality of
faculty contact was associated with a 0.30 SD
increase, on average, in academic motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college.
Frequency of studentfaculty contact was also
positively associated with academic motivation
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 819
(=.28, p<.001, R2=.28), indicating that a
1 SD increase in frequency of faculty contact
was associated with a 0.28 SD increase, on
average, in academic motivation at the end
of the fourth year of college. Conducting
research with faculty was also positively
associated with academic motivation (B=.24,
p<.001, R2=.23), indicating that, on average,
conducting research with faculty, as compared
to not engaging in this type of studentfaculty
interaction, was associated with a 0.24 SD
increase in academic motivation at the end
of the fourth year of college. In addition,
discussing a personal problem or concern with
faculty was positively associated with academic
motivation (B=.11, p<.001, R 2=.23),
indicating that, on average, discussing a
personal problem with faculty was associated
with a 0.11 SD increase in academic motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college. Finally,
out-of-class interactions with faculty was
positively associated with academic motivation
(=.15, p<.001, R2=.24), indicating that
a 1 SD increase in out-of-class interactions
with faculty was associated with a 0.15 SD
increase, on average, in academic motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college. When
considering all studentfaculty interaction
variables together in the same model, two
variables, quality of studentfaculty contact
(=.22, p<.001) and frequency of student
faculty contact (=.14, p<.001), remained
statistically significant, while research with
faculty, personal discussions with faculty, and
out-of-class interactions with faculty became
nonsignificant. This model explained 33% of
the variance (R2=.33).
the relationship between studentfaculty
interactions and academic motivation differed
in magnitude for female and male students.
They used statistical interactions to test sex
differences and the effect of studentfaculty
interactions on students academic motivation
 Table 3.

820
Regression Estimates for StudentFaculty Interaction on Academic Motivation at the End of the Fourth Year of College
(N=1,803)
Models: I II III IV V VI
Variable Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE)
Sex (male) 0.09 (0.06) 0.08 (0.06) 0.13 (0.07) 0.13 (0.07) 0.11 (0.07) 0.08 (0.06)
Race/ethnicity (student of color) 0.12 (0.09) 0.08 (0.10) 0.05 (0.11) 0.07 (0.10) 0.07 (0.11) 0.11 (0.09)
Parent education (4 year degree) 0.02 (0.05) 0.00 (0.05) 0.01 (0.04) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05)
Precollege ability (ACT score) 0.09* (0.03) 0.06 (0.03) 0.10** (0.03) 0.08* (0.03) 0.10** (0.03) 0.08 (0.04)
Precollege academic motivation 0.21*** (0.04) 0.25*** (0.04) 0.27*** (0.03) 0.28*** (0.03) 0.29*** (0.03) 0.25*** (0.04)
Precollege need for cognition 0.01 (0.04) 0.00 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) 0.01 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) 0.00 (0.04)
Precollege attitudes toward literacy 0.03 (0.03) 0.05 (0.03) 0.06 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.05 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03)
Precollege degree aspiration 0.08 (0.05) 0.07 (0.07) 0.07 (0.07) 0.08 (0.07) 0.10 (0.07) 0.08 (0.06)
High school involvement 0.03 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) 0.05 (0.03)
Attended a liberal arts college 0.04 (0.06) 0.05 (0.06) 0.17* (0.07) 0.14 (0.07) 0.11 (0.07) 0.02 (0.06)
College grades (B+ or higher) 0.21** (0.07) 0.29*** (0.07) 0.32*** (0.06) 0.34*** (0.07) 0.31*** (0.06) 0.20** (0.07)
STEM major 0.23* (0.08) 0.22* (0.08) 0.14 (0.11) 0.20* (0.10) 0.22* (0.10) 0.22 (0.09)
Time spent socializing/relaxing 0.14** (0.04) 0.14*** (0.03) 0.15*** (0.03) 0.15*** (0.03) 0.16*** (0.04) 0.14** (0.04)
Cocurricular involvement 0.07* (0.03) 0.09** (0.03) 0.07* (0.02) 0.06* (0.03) 0.06* (0.03) 0.09** (0.03)
Quality of faculty contact 0.30*** (0.03) 0.22*** (0.03)
Frequency of faculty contact 0.28*** (0.03) 0.14*** (0.02)
Research with faculty 0.24*** (0.06) 0.09 (0.06)
Personal discussions with faculty 0.11*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.02)
Out-of-class interactions with faculty 0.15*** (0.03) 0.05 (0.03)
R2 .31 .28 .23 .23 .24 .33

Notes. All continuous variables are standardized. Model I: Quality of Faculty Contact; Model II: Frequency of Faculty Contact; Model III: Research With Faculty;
ModelIV: Personal Discussions With Faculty; Model V: Out-of-class Interactions With Faculty; Model VI: All Faculty Interaction Variables.

Journal of College Student Development

Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella

*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Influencing Academic Motivation
at the end of the fourth year of college. None
of the interaction variables had a statistically
significant effect on academic motivation,
indicating that the analyses did not detect a
moderating relationship by students sex.
Limitations
Several limitations reduce the researchers
ability to generalize findings beyond the WNS
sample studied. This sample of 17 institutions
participating in the WNS does not constitute
a representative sample of all 4-year colleges
and universities, and findings may be limited
to institutions participating in the study.
Institutions also self-selected to participate in
the WNS, and it remains unknown whether
differences exist between institutions that
chose to participate and those that did not.
The longitudinal nature of the data collection
also resulted in participant attrition and,
when coupled with this studys methods of
listwise deletion for missing data, the ability
to generalize findings may be limited. It is
unclear whether some students were more
likely to follow through with completing
follow-up data collections as well as respond
to all questions pertaining to this particular
study. Furthermore, this study is limited to
participants who persisted at their institution
and did not withdraw or transfer.
This study is also limited by its use of
an existing data set that relies on self-reports
of students college experiences and set of
predetermined measures. As such, there may be
other ways of assessing students interactions
with faculty and academic motivation that
were not considered. Specifically, four of the
five measures of studentfaculty interaction,
as measured at the end of the fourth year
of college, are proxy measures for student
faculty interactions over the duration of the
students college careers, which is a notable
limitation of the WNS.
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 821
In addition, as discussed by Mayhew,
Siefert, and Pascarella (2012), the WNS
data set has an overrepresentation of female
participants, which may be attributed to the
higher enrollment of women at liberal arts
colleges along with womens higher rates
of survey participation. Nevertheless, the
overrepresentation of women in this sample is a
limitation. In addition, the sample is composed
of first-time, full-time undergraduate students
who are likely to be of traditional college age,
further limiting the findings of this study.
Similarly, the underrepresentation of students
of color is also a limitation since the liberal
arts schools in this study are predominantly
White institutions. As such, the researchers
in this study aggregated non-White students
into a single category to create a White/non-
White variable to have adequate statistical
power to consider race/ethnicity in our model.
This variable, therefore, may not adequately
represent the variation across non-White
racial/ethnic groups and further limits the
findings of this study. Finally, the study may
be limited by other potential confounding
factors. Although previous research was used
to inform the use of control variables in each
model, there may be other precollege or college
experiences or institutional characteristics that
influence student academic motivation that
were not controlled.
Discussion and Implications
Results of this study reveal that several types
of studentfaculty interactions have a positive
influence on students gains in academic
motivation over 4 years of college. When
considered separately, all five measures of
studentfaculty interactions, including quality
of faculty contact, frequency of faculty contact,
research with faculty, personal discussions
with faculty, and out-of-class interactions
with faculty, were positively associated with

academic motivation. When considering all
five measures in the same model, two measures,
quality of faculty contact and frequency
of faculty contact, remained statistically
significant, with quality of studentfaculty
contact emerging as the most significant factor
influencing students academic motivation. In
addition, this study also evaluated whether the
relationship differed for female versus male
students; however, analyses did not detect a
moderating relationship between student
faculty interactions and academic motivation
by students sex.
Results of this study add to the literature
on studentfaculty interactions and academic
motivation in two important ways. First, few
studies have examined this relationship using
a multi-institutional, longitudinal design
that includes a precollege control measure
of student academic motivation. The WNS
allows for analyses from a multi-institutional,
longitudinal perspective and includes several
important precollege and institutional control
variables that might otherwise confound this
studys results. In addition, few studies have
examined whether the relationship between
studentfaculty interactions and academic
motivation is moderated by sex, investigating
a nuance of the potential outcomes related to
studentfaculty interactions.
These findings underscore the importance
and potential influence of frequent and
varying types of studentfaculty interaction
on the academic outcomes of college. This
is significant because students academic
motivation has been shown to be a predictor
of academic achievement and persistence (D.
Allen, 1999; J. Allen et al., 2008; Eppler &
Harju, 1997; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002;
Pintrich, 2004; Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman
etal., 1992). Findings of this study suggest that
while all types of studentfaculty interactions
appear to have a positive influence on students
academic motivation, both the frequency and
822 Journal of College Student Development
Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
quality of these interactions seem to matter
most. Furthermore, when considering the effect
sizes of the frequency interactions (=.14,
p<.001) and the quality interactions (=.22,
p<.001), the quality of students interactions
with faculty may be most influential.
Higher education and student affairs
professionals interested in improving students
academic motivation, achievement, or per
sistence may wish to consider the potential role
of studentfaculty interactions in facilitating
student motivation and success, and may
wish to consider methods for increasing the
frequency of studentfaculty interactions,
as well as improving the quality or content
of these interactions. Specifically, higher
education and student affairs professionals
may want to consider ways to encourage
students to seek out opportunities to interact
with faculty, both within and outside of
the classroom, as increasing the frequency
with which students interact with faculty
members is likely to have a positive influence
on students level of academic motivation. In
addition, professionals may want to consider
ways that studentfaculty interaction could
be incentivized for both students and faculty
members. Building studentfaculty interaction
measures into performance or tenure review
processes may incentivize faculty members,
and offering students course- and non-course-
based incentives for meeting regularly with
faculty may increase students overall frequency
of interactions.
Furthermore, higher education and student
affairs professionals should also consider ways
to improve the quality of studentfaculty
interactions. For example, higher education
and student affairs professionals might develop
opportunities for students and faculty to
interact through departmental or institution-
wide programs designed to engage students
and faculty in meaningful discussions, or
professionals might develop more structure
Influencing Academic Motivation

around facultystudent advising appointments motivation, such as socioeconomic status,

or other types of regular studentfaculty
interactions. By considering the ways in which
both the frequency and quality of interactions
might be improved, institutions may have
an opportunity to improve their students
academic motivation and engagement.
Future Research
Findings from this study illuminate several
opportunities for further research. Future
studies should further investigate the impor
tant role faculty play in improving students
academic motivation. In particular, researchers
might examine how and why faculty inter
actions influence academic motivation using
interviews or observations to develop a
more detailed conceptualization of what
makes studentfaculty interaction beneficial.
Furthermore, research might examine other
student characteristics that influence academic
race/ethnicity (as more than a dichotomous
variable), and first-generation student status.
Examining how campus or departmental
climates within institutions influence students
academic motivation could also provide
important contributions to the literature.
Because the sample in this study was primarily
composed of liberal arts institutions, future
research using a larger and more representative
sample could investigate institutional differ
ences. More generally, additional research on
studentfaculty interactions, as it relates to
academic motivation for males and females,
can inform the literature on student learning
and college outcomes.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Teniell L. Trolian, University at Albany, State
University of New York, Educational Administration and
Policy Studies, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY
12222; ttrolian@albany.edu

Appendix A.
Variable Definitions
Variable Definition

Dependent Variable
Academic motivation
(8-item scale, =.74)
Mean-based scale measuring academic motivation (as measured
at the end of the fourth year of college); items include view of
academic experiences as enjoyable; view of academic
experiences as important; willingness to work hard; preparation
for tests; completion of more reading than needed; talking to
teachers outside of class; view of getting good grades as
important; enjoyment of learning new things

Independent Variables
Quality of faculty contact
(5-item scale, =.87)
Mean-based scale measuring quality of nonclassroom interactions
with faculty; items include faculty interest in personal growth;
faculty interest in growth; faculty interest in career goals; faculty
interest in close relationships; faculty interactions are satisfactory
Appendix continues

October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 823

 Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella

Appendix A. continued

Variable
Frequency of faculty contact
(4-item scale, =.75)
Research with faculty
Personal discussions with
faculty
Out-of-class interactions with
faculty
Definition
Frequency of interactions with faculty; items include frequency of
discussing grades or assignments; frequency of discussing career
plans; frequency of discussing readings or ideas outside of class;
frequency of collaboration on activities outside of class
1=student has worked on a research project with a faculty member;
0=student has not completed research with a faculty member
1=student has discussed a personal problem or concern with a
faculty member; 0=student has not discussed a personal
problem or concern with a faculty member
Perceived willingness of faculty to spend time outside of class to
discuss issues of interest and importance to students (5-item scale)

Control Variables
Sex (male) 1=male; 0=female
Race/ethnicity (student of color) 0=White/Caucasian; 1=student of color (i.e., Black, American
Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic)
Precollege ability (ACT score) Composite ACT or SAT equivalent score converted to an ACT
metric (information provided by the students college/university)
Parent education (4-year degree 1=at least one parent has a 4-year degree (BA or higher);
or higher) 0=neither parent has a 4-year degree
Precollege degree aspirations 1=intends to attain a postbaccalaureate degree; 0=does not
intend to attain a postbaccalaureate degree
Precollege academic motivation Mean-based scale of students academic motivation (see
(8-item scale, =.69) dependent variable definition for list of scale items)
Precollege need for cognition Standardized scale measuring degree to which the student enjoys
(18-item scale, =.89) engaging in effortful cognitive activities
Precollege attitudes toward Mean-based scale of students positive attitude toward literacy
literacy (6-item scale, =.69) activities
High school involvement Standardized scale measuring students involvement in a variety
(7-item scale, =.62) of activities during high school
Institution type 1=attended a liberal arts college; 0=attended a research or
(liberal arts college) regional institution
STEM major 1=biological science, engineering, physical science, or
mathematics; 0=all other majors
College grades Self-reported average cumulative grades in college where 1=B+
or higher; 0=B or lower
Time spent socializing and Hours per week spent socializing and relaxing where 1=0 hr;
relaxing 2=15 hr; 3=610 hr; 4=1115 hr; 5=1620 hr; 6=2125 hr;
7=2630 hr; 8=more than 30 hr
Cocurricular involvement Hours per week spent participating in cocurricular activities where
1=0 hr; 2=15 hr; 3=610 hr; 4=1115 hr; 5=1620 hr;
6=2125 hr; 7=2630 hr; 8=more than 30 hr

824 Journal of College Student Development

Influencing Academic Motivation
References
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link
between motivation and persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 40, 461485.
Allen, J., Robbins, S., Casillas, A., & Oh, I. (2008). Third-
year college retention and transfer: Effects of academic
performance, motivation, and social connectedness. Research
in Higher Education, 49, 647664.
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement:
Exploring the influence of studentfaculty interactions on
college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 314.
Astin, A. W. (1970a). The methodology of research on college
impact, part one. Sociology of Education, 43, 223254.
Astin, A. W. (1970b). The methodology of research on college
impact, part two. Sociology of Education, 43, 437450.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years
revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brouse, C. H., Basch, C. E., LeBlanc, M., McKnight, K. R.,
& Lei, T. (2010). College students academic motivation:
Differences by gender, class, and source of payment. College
Quarterly, 13, 110.
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
(2015). Basic classification. Retrieved from http://
carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php
Cho, M., & Auger, G. A. (2013). Exploring determinants of
relationship quality between students and their academic
department: Perceived relationship investment, student
empowerment, and studentfaculty interaction. Journalism
and Mass Communication Educator, 68, 266268.
Cotton, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Studentfaculty
interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher Education,
51, 487519.
Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., &
Lutovsky Quaye, B. R. (2010). Pedagogical signals of faculty
approachability: Factors shaping facultystudent interaction out
side the classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51, 767788.
Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of studentfaculty
interaction on students educational outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 16, 115138.
Eppler, M. A., & Harju, B. L. (1997). Achievement motivation
goals in relation to academic performance in traditional and
nontraditional college students. Research in Higher Education,
38, 557573.
Guiffrida, D. A., Lynch, M. F., Wall, A. F., & Abel, D. S. (2013).
Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A
test of a motivational model from a self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 121139.
Hu, S., & Wolniak, G. C. (2013). College student engagement
and early career earnings: Differences by gender, race/
ethnicity, and academic preparation. Review of Higher
Education, 36, 211233.
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of
studentfaculty outofclass communication to instruc
tor immediacy and trust and to student motivation.
Communication Education, 48, 4147.
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Studentfaculty interaction
in research universities: Differences by student gender, race,
social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher
Education, 50, 437459.
October 2016 vol 57 / no 7 825
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role
of studentfaculty interactions in developing college students
academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal
of College Student Development, 51, 332342.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of studentfaculty
interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24,
309332.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as
an enabler of academic success. School Psychology Review,
31, 313327.
Mayhew, M. J., Siefert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012).
How the first year of college influences moral reasoning
development for students in moral consolidation and moral
transition. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 1940.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Studentfaculty informal contact and
college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545595.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on
learning and cognitive development: A critical review and
synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 162). New York, NY: Agathon.
Pascarella, E. T., & Blaich, C. (2013). Lessons from the Wabash
National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(2), 615.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1978). Studentfaculty
informal relationships and freshman year educational
outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 183189.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects
students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects
students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Hibel, J. (1978). Student
faculty interactional settings and their relationship to
predicted academic performance. Journal of Higher Education,
49, 450463.
Pascarella, E. T., Wolniak, G. C., Pierson, C. T., & Flowers, L.
A. (2004). The role of race in the development of plans for
a graduate degree. Review of Higher Education, 27, 299320.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing
motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.
Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385407.
Reynolds, A. L., & Weigand, M. J. (2010). The relationships
among academic attitudes, psychological attitudes, and the first-
semester academic achievement of first-year college students.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47, 175195.
Rugutt, J., & Chemosit, C. C. (2009). What motivates students
to learn? Contribution of student-to-student relations,
studentfaculty interaction and critical thinking skills.
Educational Research Quarterly, 32(3), 1628.
Rydell, R. J., Rydell, M. T., & Boucher, K. L. (2010). The effect
of negative performance stereotypes on learning. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 883896.
Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the
development potential of women and men. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The
differential effects of studentfaculty interaction on college
outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 642657.
Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W.,
& Shavelson, R. (2007). Estimating causal effects using
experimental and observational designs. Report from the
Governing Board of the American Educational Research
Association Foundation Program. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women. New York, NY:
Touchstone.
Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Schimmoeller, P. A., & Perry,
N. (2013). Classroom participation and studentfaculty
interactions: Does gender matter? Journal of Higher
Education, 84, 745768.
Tison, E. B., Bateman, T., & Culver, S. M. (2011). Examination
of the genderstudent engagement relationship at one univer
sity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 2749.
826 Journal of College Student Development
View publication stats
Trolian, Jach, Hanson, & Pascarella
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do
matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153184.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N.
M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic
motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and
amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 10031017.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college
students regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 224235.
Woodside, B. M., Wong, E. H., & Wiest, D. J. (1999). The effect
of studentfaculty interaction on college students academic
achievement and self concept. Education, 119, 730733.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role
of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29, 663676.