understanding undergraduate professional

UNDERSTANDING UNDERGRADUATE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENGAGEMENT AND ITS IMPACT D R . GARY BLAU D R . CORINNE M. SNELL

Temple University Professional Development Engagement (PDE) is defined as the level of undergraduate engagement in professional development. It reflects career-related work preparation for "life after college" and is a distinct externally-focused component of student engagement (SE). The increased college retention and subsequent job placement challenges faced by today's tJ.S. college graduate suggest the need to study PDE and its impact. Utilizing the SE literature, five different antecedent variable sets are proposed to increasingly affect PDE, i.e., student background; pre-college credentials; college-related; organization-related; and motivation-related. PDE is expected to positively impact two outcomes: timely graduation and appropriate job placement. The PDE model is adaptable for testing across a wide variety of current U.S. college and university environments. The latent construct definitions of variable sets allow for additional variable inclusion beyond the measurement examples given, contingent on the research setting characteristics and resources. The goal is to stimulate empirical testing of this model. (149 words) Keywords: professional development; student engagement; retention; persistence

Introduction Of those full-time students beginning college in the United States (US), on average fewer than four in 10 will graduate within four years (Carey, 2005); and less than five in 10 will make it out in five years (Morrow & Ackermann, 2012). Boden (2011-2012) found more recent graduates were persisting longer to complete their degree. As Reason (2009) noted, retention is an institutional term while persistence towards graduating is student-focused. One important component driving graduation success is Student Engagement (SE), i.e., the effort and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities such as leaming, graduating, and acquiring knowledge to succeed in one's envisioned career (Astin, 1993; Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006). Examples of these activities include

time spent studying, development of oral and writing skills, interaction with peers and faculty, and utilization of institutional resources, such as the library and various information technologies (Astin, 1984; Reason, 2009). However, these SE activities are generally intemally-focused within a college/university. The increased job placement challenges faced by today's U.S. college graduate (Kavoussi, 2012; Lipka, 2008) suggest that colleges and universities need to also increase their extemally-focused SE efforts to help students find appropriate jobs, e.g., related to one's major, good pay, and career potential (Arcidiacono, 2004; Stone, Zukin & Van Hom, 2012). Stone et al. (2012) found that fewer than half of U.S. college graduates from 2009 to 2011 found their first job within 12

689

690 / College Student Journal months of graduating, much less than the 73 percent of 2006 - 2008 graduates who found employment within that time period. An extended unemployment period for recent graduates can have a long-lasting negative impact on both their mental and physical health, as well as life time eamings (Blustein, Medvide & Wan, 2012). It is argued that much of this needed external focus for SE can be captured by looking at undergraduate Professional Development Engagement (PDE). In this paper PDE is defined as "/Ae level of undergraduate engagement in professional development.'^ Thus, PDE falls within the broader constmct of SE, but has a more extemal focus, i.e., activities designed to help the student persist and successfully fransition frotn college-to-work. Current measures of SE do not adequately measure PDE. It is also argued that greater PDE will enhance the likelihood of a student graduating in a timely manner and having an appropriate job upon graduation. Before proposing a conceptual model for studying PDE a brief literature review on undergraduate development, including distinguishing career development versus professional development, and examining the intemally- focused SE literature will be provided. Review of the Literature Undergraduate Development: Distinguishing Career versus Professional Development The attainment of knowledge and skills gained through a college education contributes to personal growth and eventual career advancement, and can encompass a variety of leaming opportunities (Chiekering & Gamson, 1987). Traditional academic course work, as well as participation in activities outside the classroom, such as intemships, extemships, and cooperative job programs (co-ops) can play a powerfial role in undergraduate student development (Rayman, 1993). Formal university programs and

auxiliary services dedicated to fostering such undergraduate development are somewhat recent additions to university campuses (Nefl, 2003; Rayman, 1993). During the 1990s colleges shifted from job placement to career planning services (Rayman, 1993), colleges and universities commonly call such offices career centers or career services. "Career/ Professional Development Centers" or CPDCs broadly describe such services. The tenn "CPDC" acknowledges that depending on resources, such a service may focus on either career development activities or professional development activities, or ideally both. There is an important distinction between career development versus professional development. Webster's Dictionary (2001) defines career as "a chosen occupation or vocation." Career development focuses on helping an undergraduate to choose a major thereby fostering a "connection" between academics and post-college career options. This franslates to an occupational choice upon graduation (e.g., nursing, engineering, accounting) or a major (e.g., pre-medicine, pre-law) leading to required graduate education (e.g., medicine, law) for an occupation (doctor, lawyer). Career development (Chung, 2002; Conner, Daugherty & Giknore, 2012-2013) generally encompasses multiple activities, including: self-assessments of personality, aptitude, and vocational interests; taking required academic courses within a major; and meeting with a career counselor and/or faculty/academic advisor for matching a major to potential occupational paths. Career development activities positively influence student persistence (Conner et al, 2012-2013). Instead of focusing on major or occupational choice, PDE focuses on engagement in activities enhancing graduation persistence and post-graduation employment. Complementing career development, there is a generally recognized need for CPDCs to also increase their professional development

Understanding Undergraduate Professional Development Engagement... / 6 9 1

program activities (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008; Wessel, Christian & Hoff, 2003). Such activities can include: mock "live" hiring interviews; video-taping an interviewee; resume development/critique; speakers coming to student professional organizations (SPOs); on campus recruiting/employer networking events; impression management workshops (pre-interview research on a company, business dress and dining etiquefte); and work-based leaming programs such as paid/ unpaid intemships, co-ops and job shadowing (Elrath, Hawk & LeClair, 2010). Such professional development activities augment career development activities, and prepare students to find a meaningful job upon graduation. Professional development emphasizes self-presentation, networking and other "soft skills", e.g., teamwork, leadership (Shivpuri & Kim, 2004), to gain a competitive hiring edge. Increasing such professional development activities are consistent with the recommendations made by Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008) and Murphy, Blustein, Bohling and Plaft (2010) in their col lege-to-work transition models. Two empirical studies (Bowers, Dickman & Fuqua, 2001 ; Wessel et al., 2003) highlight the difference between professional development and career development. Collectively, these two studies conceptualize career development (e.g., academic major, career exploration/planning) versus professional development (e.g., networking, attending resume and interview workshops) as distinct factors. Professional Development Activities Leading to Persistence and Job Placement Undergraduate engagement or active participation in CPDC sponsored programs often leads to the strengthening of a student's commitment to degree completion and eventual job placement success of its graduates (Lipka, 2008). This "success" is important

to the reputation of the University, as well as particular colleges/schools within the University (Bowers et al., 2001). Prior research has noted the significant positive association of individual PDE-related items, i.e., internships, participation in SPOs, and career-related work experience, as being related to college graduate employment success (Sagem, Dallam & Laverty, 2000). Sagem et al. (2000) defined employment success as securing employment within two months of graduation. Gault, Redington and Schlager (2000) also found that newer alumni (graduated within the past 5 years) with at least one intemship had a significantly higher starting salary and found their first full-time job in less time than comparable alumni without an intemship. Unfortunately, too many undergraduates never take full advantage of their CPDC's resources (Lipka, 2008; Nell, 2003). Since the PDE constmct falls within the broader SE consfruct, prior SE-related models will be reviewed next. These models suggest variable sets to incorporate into the PDE model. Prior SE Research as a General Foundation for a PDE Model Student engagement (SE) encompasses the effort and energy which students devote to educationally purposeful activities such as leaming, graduating, and acquiring knowledge to succeed in one's envisioned career (Astin, 1993; Carini et al., 2006). Some scholars (e.g., Kezar, 2006: Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges & Haydek, 2007) argue that a second component of SE is how an institution deploys its resources. Yet no mafter how many resources are made available, undergraduates must put forth the necessary energy and effort to be engaged (Pike & Kuh, 2005), and this includes professional development engagement or PDE. According to the models of Tinto (1993) and Astin (1993), student engagement leads to a higher quality leaming experience and

692 / College Student Journal persistence towards graduating. Tinto (1993) emphasized that students' decisions to persist/withdraw depend upon their successful academic and social integration. Academic integration focuses on conformity with related norms (e.g., grades or values of the institution), while social integration involves the student's ability to acclimate to their new social environment (Kuh et al., 2007). Thus, student persistence towards graduation (Allen, 1999; Cabrera, Nora & Castañeda, 1993; Nora & Cabrera, 1996) is a function of the individual (e.g., motivation, academic integration, social integration) as well as factors within the current collegiate (e.g., institutional commitment, institutional impression) and former (high school/familial) environments (e.g., parents education, high school rank, SAT/ACT scores). More recently Reason (2009, p.261) presented a conceptual tnodel of student learning and persistence towards graduating which integrated the above work and identified distal to proximal variable sets as antecedents. Distal variables are expected to have less direct infiuence on an outcome, and as the variables move closer to an outcome, they become increasingly proximal, with the most proximal variables expected to have the strongest infiuence. In Reason's (2009) model, moving Irom distal to proximal, these variable sets include: student background (e.g., gender, parental education); pre-college characteristics and experiences (e.g., high school grades, quality of college preparation, SAT or ACT scores); organizational context (e.g. institution quality, organizational behavior dimensions); the peer environment (e.g., campus racial and academic climates); and finally individual student experiences (including curricular (major), classroom and out-of-class). Thus student experiences, as the tnost proximal variable to learning and persistence towards graduating, would be expected to have the strongest impact (Reason, 2009). The PDE

model presented will also follow a distal to proximal variable set "fiow", showing variable sets expected to increasingly impact on PDE. Four variable examples within each variable set and their relationships to PDE based on prior studies of SE will be detailed. A Conceptual Model for Understanding PDE Professional development engagement is defined as a ''the level of undergraduate engagement in professional development.'' Astin (1984, p.298) suggested that involvement tneans "the investment of physical and psychological energy in different "objects" that range in their degree of specificity." Activity sponsored by a CPDC is a specific example of Astin's (1984) objects. Refiecting this definition, PDE is symbolically represented as an oval in Figure 1 to show that it is a latent construct. A latent construct is not measured directly, but it is operationalized by specific itetns theorized to be part of its definition or falling within the construct's domain (Hinkin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978). A measure must have content validity. Based on a literature review there is no existing PDE scale. Since PDE is an externally-focused component of student engagement (SE) existing SE measures are briefly reviewed. Existing SE Measures as Sources for PDE Items A literature review identified three wellknown/standardized measures for operationalizing SE, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE); the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ); and the Student Developtnent Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI). Although each measure has an internal (within college) activities emphasis, PDE items are also found within each one. However, all of these embedded PDE items suffer trom restricted response scales which do not allow for the level or intensity of PDE to be fully measured.


student Background Variables Set SES, Gender; Parental Education; Family Support

Pre-Coilege Credential Variables Set High School Grades; Quality of High School Attended; SAT/ACT Score;

Appropriate Job Placement Job-related Major; Good Career Potential; Competitive Salary

Earlier Coiiege Entrance

College-Related Variables Set College GPA; Residential/Commuter Status; Hours Worked/Week; Hours Spent on Coursework/Week Professional Development Engagement (PDE)

Organization-Related Variables Set Access Ease of CPDC; Quality of CPDC; Faculty involvement; Quality of Academic Advisine;

CPDC Services Utilized; Number of Student Professional Organization Meetings Attended; Number of nternships; Seif-Rated Engagement with CPDC Resources

Motivation-Related Variables Set Value of PD; Satisfaction vi/ith Degree Prograrr; Vi/hen Student Joins PD Organization; Realistic Job Search Expectations

Trmeiy Graduation ur years or less?; Extension needed?

j

Figure 1. A Conceptual Model for Understanding Professional Development Engagement and its Impact

The NSSE is perhaps the most wellknown measure of student engagement (Kuh et al., 2007). Several individual items within the 12-item "enriching educational experiences" (EEE) scale are relevant for measuring PDE. Item heterogeneify of the EEE helps to explain its lower reliabilify (alpha =.56, Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006). Alpha coefficients

of at least .70 are generally indicative of adequate intemal consistency scale reliabilify (Nunnally, 1978). Students are asked about such activities as doing or planning to: take foreign language coursework, study abroad, complete an independent study, and complete an internship, practicum, clinical assignment or field experience. There is a somewhat

694 / College Student Journal resfricted response scale used for these items, i.e., "done", "plan to do," "do not plan to do," and "undecided" which may also attenuate scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Completing an intemship-type of experience is an example of a PDE item, but also asking how many intemship experiences is important (EIrath et al, 2010). The CSEQ is a second typology for measuring student engagement (Kuh, Hu & Vesper, 2000). Within the ten-item "clubs and organizations" activities CSEQ scale again there is an item heterogeneity issue. Three sample items are: "attended a meeting of a campus club, organization or student govemment group," "worked on an off-campus committee, organization or project (civic group, church group, cotnmunity event, etc.)," and "managed or provided leadership for a club or organization on or off the campus." This scale has good (alpha over .70) reliability (Kuh et al, 2000). Attending meetings and providing leadership within a student professional organization fall within the PDE construct (Wessel et al, 2003), but the linkages of involvement in student government and off-campus activities to PDE may be more ambiguous. For focusing on PDE, it is useful to provide one specific referent, i.e., student professional organization or SPO (Sagem et al, 2000). The CSEQ uses a sotnewhat resfricted/ambiguous four-point response scale, i.e., 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = often and 4 = very ofren. It would be more precise to also give behavioral frequencies, e.g., "occasionally" (at least once/every several months), "often" (at least once/month) and "very often" (at least once/ week). Finally, the third SE scale is the Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI). The SDTLI was developed to collect student self-reported behaviors, attitudes and perceptions that related to three (of seven) vectors in Chickering and Reisser's (1993) theory of college student psychosocial

development: clarifying and establishing purpose, developing mature interpersonal relationships, and academic autonotny (Martin, 2000). Several scales within the SDTLI measure different aspects of the clarifying and establishing purpose vector, including career planning. The career planning scale has 19 itetns, and in the study by Foubert and Grainger (2006) it exhibited a good reliability (alpha = .80). However, these items include both career development and professional development. Sample items include: "I am a member of at least one club or organization that is specifically related to my field", and "within the past month I have read an article or book that deals with some aspect of a career I am considering or have decided upon." Item responses are generally limited to "tme" or "false." Being a member of an organization related to one's field or major, e.g., an SPO, falls within the PDE construct domain. Yet, how active a student is within this SPO needs to be tneasured to better operationalize PDE. In Figure 1 four item examples are given falling within the PDE preparation for "life after college" domain which can be aggregated: (1) CPDC services utilized; (2) number of student professional organization (SPO) meetings attended; (3) number of intemships participated in; and (4) perceived level of engagement with CPDC-sponsored resources. Since it is a latent construct, other items, based on the resources of a particular CPDC can be included within the PDE construct definition, "//îe level of undergraduate engagement in professional development."' The first three items are well-defined or behavioral, while the fourth item is perceptual. Across different universities/colleges there will be a wide range on the behavioral items, e.g., services CPDCs offer, intemship opportunities, SPOs. Therefore, CPDCs may also wish to gather undergraduate perceptions of their PDE, using some type of Likert response scale. The convergent validity of these behavioral versus


perceptual items, as shown by their common factor loading(s), and inter-item correlations, must first be determined before aggregation. Hu and Wolniak (2010) recently found that social engagement was positively related to early career eamings of college students but academic engagement was not. Hu and Wolniak (2010) created their social engagement and academic engagement scales using factor analysis of their items to first create scales and then to assess their scale reliabilities. Items were similar to those used in the NSSE. It is anticipated that the behavioral and/or perceptual items of a CPDC would be used to develop a PDE measure, following a similar factor analysis and scale reliability calculation procedure (Hinkin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978). Producing a reliable and valid PDE measure is a critical first step for having a testable model. This leads to the first proposition: PI - A valid and reliable measure of PDE can be developed. Antecedent Variable Sets For Explaining PDE To assess what variables impact on or help to understand/explain PDE, five broad antecedent variable sets are offered as shown in Figure 1: (1) Student Background; (2) Pre-College Credentials; (3) College-Related; (4) Organization-Related; and (5) Motivation-Related. As with PDE, each antecedent variable set is defined as a latent consfruct, and four variable examples falling within the domain of each variable set will be provided. This latent constmct definition allows for flexible variable inclusion within each variable set. Since PDE falls within the SE constmct it is appropriate to utilize prior student engagement (SE) models and empirical studies of SE focusing on outcomes such as leaming and persistence (Allen, 1999; Kuh, Cmce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2008; Reason, 2009); as well as retention (Bean, 1980; Tinto, 1975). The above five variable sets have

been collectively used across prior SE-related research and should be helpñil in explaining differences in undergraduates' PDE. Prior SE-related research has also displayed model variables as latent constmcts (e.g., Allen, 1999; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Each variable set will be defined and discussed, beginning with the most distal (Student Background), and moving to the most proximal (Motivation-Related). As arrows from variable sets to PDE in Figure 1 become "thicker" the theorized impact of the variable set on PDE is expected to increase. Propositions containing specific variables within each variable set are presented to facilitate subsequent empirical testing. Student Background Variables Set As a latent constmct, the Student Background Variables Set is defined as "diversity-related and family-related characteristics." Four examples are given: socioeconomic status (SES); gender; parental education and family support. SES has been found to have a consistent positive impact on student persistence towards graduating (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), even after confrolling for other demographics (e.g., gender, race). For gender, prior research (Kuh, 2003) has found that women typically have higher SE than men, and that women generally have higher persistence (Peltier, Laden & Matranga, 1999). Having parents with higher education can lead to greater student graduation persistence (Allen, 1999; Kuh et al, 2008). Nora and Cabrera (1996) found that parental encotiragement had a positive impact on persistence for both minority and nontninority students. Cabrera et al. (1993) found that support from family/close friends had a positive impact on persistence intent and behavior. This suggests the following propositions: P 2 a - SES is positively related to PDE. P2b - Female undergraduates have higher PDE than male undergraduates.

696 / College Student Journal P2c - Parental education is positively related to PDE. P2d - Family support is positively related to PDE. Pre-College Credential Variables Set As a latent consfruct, the Pre-College Credential Variables Set is defined as "record-related information that is used to help admit a student to college." Four examples are given in the model: high school grades, quality of high school aftended, SAT/ACT scores, and earlier college enfrance. High school GPA is positively related to student persistence (Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Academic readiness for college can affect student persistence (Allen, 1999). Adehnan (2006) found that more high school academic resources and rigorous coursework helped subsequent college degree aftairmient. Pre-college achievement scores (e.g., SAT/ACT) were positively related to student engagement and persistence (Friedman & Mandel, 2009-2010). Given rising tuition costs at four year colleges, initially going to a community college to then transfer all one's credits through "articulation agreements" to stay on track for a four-year graduation cycle is an aftractive option for many (Townsend & Wilson, 2006). However, if a student enters their college or university as a first semester freshman versus transferring in later this allows more time for the freshman to be academically and socially integrated (Tinto, 1975; 1993). Research (Townsend & Wilson, 2006) has shown that "transfer shock" can happen when fransferring from a community college to a four-year college. This suggests the following simple propositions: P3a - High school grades are positively related to PDE. P3b — Quality of high school aftended is positively related to PDE. P3c - SAT/ACT scores are positively related to PDE.

P3d - Earlier college enfrance is positively related to PDE. College-Related Variables Set As a latent consfruct the College-Related Variables Set is defined as "the activities or records that help to define a student's undergraduate experience." Four examples are given: grade point average (GPA); residential/ commuter status; hours worked/week; and hours spent on coursework/week. Research (e.g., Carini et al., 2006) has established positive correlations between college GPA and student engagement measures. Kuh, Gonyea, and Palmer (2001) found that on-campus residential students, both freshmen and seniors, had higher scores on SE, including interactions with faculty and enriching educational experiences, than commuting students. Astin (1993) found that retention was significantly enhanced for students living in residence halls. Lundberg (2004) found that undergraduates working more than 20 hours/week engaged with peers and faculty less than those working less than 20 hours or not working. Working over 20 hours/week had a negative impact on first year undergraduates' GPA (Kuh et al., 2008). King (2006, p.2) found that student employtnent is the "single most common major activity among America's diverse undergraduate population," with approximately 80% of all college students being employed while completing their undergraduate education (Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash & Rude-Parkins, 2006). Typically such employment is not directly related to a student's major, but is used to help pay for college and related living expenses (Riggert et al., 2006). Sagem et al. (2000) found that only career-related work experience, and not general work experience, was positively related to post graduation employment success. Spending more hours/week on coursework is a form of student engagement or involvement (Astin, 1993). Kuh et al. (2000) found that the "disengaged students" category reported studying


fewer hours/week than other student categories. Kuh et al. (2008) found that studying over 20 hotirs/week had a positive impact on first year undergraduates' GPA. This suggests the following propositions: P4a - GPA is positively related to PDE. P4b - On-campus resident undergraduates have higher PDE than commuting undergraduates. P4c - Hours worked/week is negatively related to PDE. P4d - Hours spent on course work/ week is positively related to PDE. Organization-Related Variables Set As a latent construct, the Organization-Related Variables Set is defined as "perceived university-related and/or school-specific resources and practices that can affect an undergraduates' educational experience." Four examples given within this construct are students' perceived access ease of CPDC; quality of CPDC; faculty involvement; and quality of academic advising. At larger universities there may be university-wide as well as school-specific (e.g.. Engineering, Business) "career-related" resources. Thus it is possible to have separate items for the first two examples, i.e., access ease and quality of university-wide CPDC versus a school-specific CPDC. Marketing research (Parasuraman, Zeithatnl & Berry, 1985) has shown that perceived ease of access and quality are distinguishable service components. The first three variable sets. Student Background, Pre-College Credentials, and College-Related, contain item examples which are generally more precise or well-defined (e.g., gender, high school grades, college GPA). The itetn examples in the current variable set are perceptual, and thus should be answered on a Likert response scale. It is possible to cluster different universities based on different structure-based typologies (Pike

& Kuh, 2005), but this variable set focus is on undergraduates' perceptions of their universities' support resources. Milem and Berger (1997) created a reliable (alpha = .77) faculty involvement scale, with item examples including meeting with faculty during office hours and socializing with faculty. They found faculty involvement to be positively related to academic integration (Tinto, 1993). Morrow and Ackermann (2012) found that perceived faculty support was positively related to persistence intention. Bowers et al. (2001) and Wessel et al. (2003) had separate items for academic advising, career center staff, and faculty. Thus each can serve as a separate information source for undergraduates. Collectively this research suggests the following propositions: P5a-Access ease of CPDC is positively related to PDE. P5b - Quality of CPDC is positively related to PDE. P5c - Faculty involvement is positively related to PDE. P5d - Quality of academic advising is positively related to PDE. Motivation-Related Variables Set As a latent construct the Motivation-Related Variable Set is defined as "undergraduate perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes about their educational experience." Four examples are given within this construct: perceived value of professional development (PD); satisfaction with degree program; when did a student join their professional development organization; and realistic job search expectations. Bean (1980) found that for both male and female models undergraduates' perceived development was positively related to their satisfaction, which then decreased attrition. Foubet! and Granger (2006) found that undergraduates who were involved in a student organization/club by attending a meeting.

698 / College Student Journal joining, or leading an organization had higher career planning development than uninvolved undergraduates. Morrow and Ackermann (2012) found that perceived instrumental value of degree attainment was positively related to persistence intention. No longer promising "job placement" of a graduating senior, CPDCs instead emphasize providing the resources for a comprehensive but also realistic job search process (Nell, 2003; Rayman, 1993). Collectively this suggests the following propositions: P6a - Perceived value of professional development (PD) is positively related to PDE. P6b - Satisfaction with degree program is positively related to PDE. P6c — Earlier joining of a student professional development organization is positively related to PDE. P6d - Realistic job search expectations are positively related to PDE Complex Propositions Based on Distal to Proximal Variable Set Relationships to PDE As noted earlier, increasing the arrow "thickness" from variable sets to PDE in Figure 1 reflects their increasing expected impact on PDE. Such relationships are represented in these increasingly more complex propositions: P7 - The student background variables set will account for significant PDE variance. P8 - The pre-college credential variables set will account for significant additional PDE variance beyond the student background variable set. P9 - The college-related variables set will account for significant additional PDE variance beyond the student background and pre-college credential variable sets.

PIO - The organization-related variables set will account for significant additional PDE variance beyond the student background, pre-college credential and college-related variables sets. PI 1 - The motivation-related variables set will account for significant PDE variance beyond the student background, pre-college credential, college-related and organization-related variable sets. Outcomes of Professional Development Engagement (PDE) It is expected that PDE will be positively related to two important outcomes. Timely Graduation and Appropriate Job Placement as noted in Figure 1. Timely Graduation, as a latent construct, is defined as "graduating with a bachelor's degree within four years of institutional enrolhnent." Two item examples include: graduating in four years or less versus more than four years, and not having to extend the time needed to get one's degree. As a latent construct. Appropriate Job Placement is defined as "starting a full-time job closely after graduation that is related to one's major, allows financial independence, and has good career potential." Three item examples falling with in this construct include perceived job related to one's major, good career (advancement) potential; and competitive salary. Much of the existing student enrollment literature has focused on understanding two related outcomes: why traditional (full-time) college students either persist towards graduating (Reason, 2009) or drop out (Bean, 1980). Often persistence has been tneasured as returning to college after one's freshmen year (Allen, 1999; Cabrera et al, 1993) or graduation (Conner et al., 2012-2013; DesJardins, Kim & Rzonca, 2002-2003). The college dropout rate in the US is about 50% and most of this occurs after the first year (Morrow &


Ackermann, 2012). A less-researched outcome involves investigating "extenders," i.e., those who take longer than the normal four years to complete a bachelor's degree (DesJardins et al, 2002-2003; Volkwein & Lorang, 1996). Extenders represent an increasing group of college students (Boden, 2011-2012). Comparing data from the National Longitudinal Surveys for the High School Classes of 1972 versus 1988, Bound, Lovenheim and Tumer (2010) found that 58% of the 1972 cohort graduated with a bachelor's degree within four years of finishing high school versus only 44% for the 1988 high school cohort. Reasons for extending this time frame include: financial-related, such as a student having to work to pay college costs and thus not being able to take as many courses/semester; personal issues, e.g., family and/or medical-related; as well as students being unsure of or changing their major (Bound et al, 2010). Conner, et al (2012-2013) found that freshmen participation in a course called "Life Calling," which emphasized self-assessment and the student's developing a path for development increased their persistence. By sponsoring various PDE activities, CPDCs can expedite their undergraduates' timely graduation and successful college-to-work transition (Murphy et al, 2010). It is postulated that: PI2 - PDE will be positively related to timely graduation. PI 3 - PDE will be positively related to appropriate job placement. P14 - PDE will account for significant timely graduation variance beyond the student background, pre-college credential, college-related, organization-related, and motivation-related variable sets. PI 5 - PDE will account for significant appropriate job placement

variance beyond the student background, pre-college credential, college-related, organization-related, and rnotivation-related variable sets. Boundary Conditions and Methodological/ Practical Issues in Testing the PDE Model The model is initially meant to focus on traditional full-time undergraduate students who enrolled at a four-year university or college in the United States (U.S.). It can include transfer students who planned on a four-year graduation cycle (Townsend & Wilson, 2006). Although there are common goals across four-year universities/colleges in the US, including: provide a high quality education experience to all students, provide the resources needed for such an experience, and maximize student graduation rates in a timely manner, there are also many variables on which US universities and colleges differ (Bean, 1980; Kuh et al, 2000; 2008; Pike & Kuh, 2005). The simple and complex propositions of the proposed PDE model can be easily converted into bypotheses for testing on an undergraduate sample, witb an emphasis on being heuristic/flexible to allow a researcher to collect the data available within their specific setting. To test the model, PI must first be met, i.e., having a valid and reliable measure of PDE, since no current PDE measure exists. This PDE measure will then be tested for successive increased explanation by the variable sets, and used to help explain timely graduation and appropriate job placement. How PDE is operationalized in a setting will be affected by the CPDC resources available at a particular college or university (Kuh et al, 2005; Nell, 2003). Item examples for measuring PDE were given to stimulate scale building. From a practical side, how feasible is it to collect self-report data frotn undergraduates? e.g., does the college or university have an

700 / College Student Journal existing undergraduate Student survey that it administers? Is this survey "required for graduation" or voluntary? If such a survey exists, how easy would it be to modify this survey to test at least part of the PDE model? If a survey is not currently being administered, does the institution have the resources to start such a survey? Once a survey is started and a baseline of model measures established, then successive surveys, even if only cross-sectional, can see how such measures change over time. There are clear data collection challenges in getting a sufficient sample to allow testing of at least part of the proposed model. For example, what if students do not use available but non-mandatory CPDC resources? Transfer students, particularly if they take most of their courses at a satellite campus, may not have as much opportunity to use CPDC resources as freshmen-entry orfiall-timestudents on the main campus. A "did not use" response on a Likert-scale PDE item would have to be coded as missing data, and would decrease the available sample size. Conclusion Despite the above issues, PDE is deserving of study. The increased timely graduation and job placement challenges faced by today's U.S. college student suggest the need to study PDE. A model has been presented defining the PDE consfruct and it is adaptable for testing across a wide variety of current university/ college environments. The latent consfruct definitions of the variable sets are designed to help stimulate empirical testing of this model.

References Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Path to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40{4), 461-485. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

Arcidiacono, P. (2004). Ability sorting and the returns to college major. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 343375. doi: 10.1016/2Fj.jeconom.2003.10.010 Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education. 12(2), 155-187. doi:10.1007/2B00976194 Blustein, D., Medvide, M. & Wan, C. (2012). A critical perspective of contemporary unemployment policy and practices. Journal of Career Development. 39(4), 341-356. doi:tO.l 177/0894845310397545 Boden. G. (2011-2012). Retention and graduation rates: Insights fi'om an extended longitudinal Study. Journal of College Student Retention , 13(2), 179-203. Bound, J., Tumer, S. & Lovenheim, M. (2010). Increasing time to Baccalaureate Degree in the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 15892. Bowers, R., Dickman, M. SL Fuqua, D. (2001). Psychosocial and career development related toemployment of seniors. NASPA Journal, 38(3), 326- 347. doi:10.2202/21949-6605.1146 Cabrera, A., Nora, A. & Castañeda, M. (1993). Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education. 64(1), 123-139. doi: 10.2307/2960026. Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher college graduation rates are within our reach. A report by the Education Trust. http://www.citeulike. org/group/6270/article/3134199 Carini, R., Kuh, G. & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(\), 1-32. doi:10.1007/sll 162-005-8150-9 Chiekering, A.. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin. 39(1), 3-7. Chiekering, A. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chung, Y (2002). Career decision-making, self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Career Development. 28(4), 277-284. doi:10.1023/A:1021462028524 Conner, S., Daugherty, D. & Gilmore, M. (2012-2013). Student retention and persistence to graduation: Effects of an introductory life calling course. Journal of College Student Retention, 14(1), 251-263.

Understanding Undergraduate Professional Development Engagement... / 7 0 1 DesJardins, S., Kim, D. & Rzonca, C. (2002-2003). A nested analysis of factors affecting bachelor's degree completion. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4), 407-435. Elrath, M., Hawk, J. & LeClair, N. (2010). Professional development for college students in tough economic times. Academic Leadership: The online journal, 5(4), 6-12. Foubert, J. & Grainger, L. (2006). Effects of involvement in clubs and organizations on the psychosocial development of college students. NASPA Journal, 43(\), 166-182. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1576 Friedman, B. & Mandel, R. (2009-2010). The prediction of college student academic performance and retention: Application of expectancy and goal setting theories. Journal of College Student Retention, 11(2), 227-246. Gault, J., Redington, J. & Schlager, T. (2000). Undergraduate business intemships and career Success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 45-53. doi:10.1177/0273475300221006 Hinkin,T. (1995). Areview of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0 Hu, S. & Wolniak, B. (2010). Initial evidence on the influence of college student engagement on early career eamings. Research in Higher Education, 51, 750-766. doi: 10.1007/sl 1162-010-9176-1 Kavoussi, B. (2012). Half of recent college graduates lack full-time job study says http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/05/10/college-graduates-fuU-time-jobsstudy_n 1496827.html. Accessed July 27, 2012 Kezar, A. (2006). The impact of institutional size on student engagement. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 87-111. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1573 King, J. (2006). Wor¡úng their way through college: Student employment and its impact on the college experience. ACE Brief American Council on Education, Center for Policy Analysis. Kuh, G. (2003). What we're leaming about student engagement. Change, 35(\), 25-32. doi:10.1080/00091380309604090 Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. Kuh, G. Gonyea, R. & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or fiction. Commuter Perspectives, 27(1), 2-5. Kuh, G., Hu, S.,& Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they do: An activities-based typology of college students. Joumal ofCoHege Student Development, 41, 228-244.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. A Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Lipka, S. (2008). fn tighter employment market, career services gain clout. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 16;5¥(36),Al-5. Lundberg, C. (2004). Working and leaming: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal. 41(2), 201-215. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1330 Martin, L. (2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial outcomes of students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 294-303. Milem, J. & Berger, J. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387-400. Morrow, J. & Ackennann, M. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year students: The importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student Journal, 46(3), 483-491. Murphy, K., Blustein, D., Bohlig, A. & Platt, M. (2010). The college-to-career transition: An exploration of emerging adulthood. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), 174-181. doi:10.f002/j.l556-6678.2010.tb00006.x Nell, A. (2003). The good, the bad and the ugly: Developing placement services for liberal arts undergraduates. Journal of Career Development, 29(2), 183194. doi:10.i023/A:1021418213503 Nora, A. & Cabrera, A. (1996). The role perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-132. doi: 10.2307/2943977 Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. & Berry, L. (1985). A model of service quality and implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall), 41-56. doi:10.2307/I251430 Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, R. (2005). How college affects students. Volume 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peltier, G., Laden, R. & Matranga, M. (1999). Student persistence in college: Areview of research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4), 357-375. Pike, G. & Kuh, G. (2005). A Typology of Student Engagement for American Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185-209. doi: 10.1007/s 11162-004-1599-0

702 / College Student Journal Rayman, J. (1993). Contemporary career services: Theory defines practice. New Directions for Student Services. No.62, Summer San Francisco: Josscy-Bass. p.3-22. doi:10.1002/ss.37119936203 Reason, R. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 659-682. Riggert, S., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J., Ash, D. & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76, 63-92. doi:10.3102/00346543076001063. Sagem, H., Dallam, J. & Laverty, J. (2000). Effects of career preparation experiences on initial employment success of college graduates. Research in Higher Education, 41(6), 753-767. Shivpuri, S. & Kim, B. (2004). Do employers and colleges see eye-to-eye?: College student development and assessment. NACE Journal, 65, 37-44. Sparks, E. & Waits, M. (2011). Degrees for what jobs? Raising expectations for universities in a global economy. NGA Center for Best Practices, vwvw.nga. org. accessed June 24,2011. Stone, C , Van Horn, C. & Zukin, C. (2012). Chasing the American dream: Recent college graduates and the great recession. John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. New Jersey: Rutgers University. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. doi: 10.3102/00346543045001089 Tinto, V. (1993). Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2"^ ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Townsend, B. & Wilson, K. (2006). A hand hold for a little bit: Factors facilitating the success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439-455. Volkwein, J. & Lorang, W. (1996). Characteristics of extenders: Students who take light credit loads and graduate in more than four years. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 43-68. doi:10.1007/BF01680041 Webster s Dictionary (2001). Boston: Houghton Mifñin. Wendlandt, N. & Rochlen, A. (2008). Addressing the college-to-work transition. Journal of Career Developmen/,55(2), 151-165.doi:10.1177/0894845308325646 Wessel, R., Christian, N. & HoflF, A. (2003). Enhancing career development through the career success club. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 265-276. doi: 10.1177/089484530302900404

Copyright of College Student Journal is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.