Essential Encounters: A Study of University Students' Out-of-Classroom Interactions with Academic Staff

Kristie Daniel DiGregorio, Research Fellow

University of Sydney

DIGRK97.439

A Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education

Brisbane, Queensland

30 November - 4 December 1997

Introduction And Overview

Does university study affect 'outcomes' in students? Or does

university study merely coincide with a developmental period in which

the same changes would have occurred with or without university

attendance? A debate of these issues has been waged in the research on

higher education, illustrated by two major studies of student outcomes.

The thirty-year Cooperative Institutional Research Project encompassing

nearly 500,000 students and 1,300 institutions is the largest, ongoing

study of eighteen-to-twenty-two-year-old American university students

(Astin, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reviewed all of the

research on university effects implemented in the twenty years between

1970 and 1990 -- more than 2,600 studies. Both of these cornerstone

works in the research on higher education confirmed that there are a

number of changes that occur during university study that cannot be

attributed to normal maturation; university attendance is associated

with student outcomes. Among the outcomes identified by the research

are significant changes in learning and in cognitive development

(including general verbal and qualitative skills, oral and written

communication skills, intellectual and analytical skills, critical

thinking, problem-solving, and intellectual flexibility), modest

changes in attitude and values (including values related to intrinsic

occupational rewards, political liberalism, and gender roles), and some

changes in psychosocial development (including increases in

intellectual and interpersonal self-confidence).

In addition to confirming that university study affects outcomes in

students, the literature identifies aspects of university study that

are associated with the positive outcomes. Consistently and

unanimously, the literature has traced students' out-of-classroom

interactions with academic staff1 to the epicentre of positive student

outcomes. This paper offers evidence of the essential role that such

interactions play in the positive outcomes of university study and the

research presented offers a fuller understanding of the factors that

encourage or discourage these interactions.

Review of the Literature on Students' Out-of-Classroom Interactions

with Academic Staff

As studies of the undergraduate experience have discovered, much of

students' university experience falls outside the boundaries of the

classroom. It has been estimated that only one-third of university

students' waking hours are spent in class or studying, leaving students

with at least 70 hours of discretionary time each week (Kuh, Schuh,

Whitt, Andreas, Lyons, Strange, Krehbiel, & MacKay, 1991; Boyer, 1987).

The research on university student outcomes suggests that when

students spend some of their time outside of class with academic staff,

for example, in an advising session, as a continuation of class

discussion or during office hours, that the effects of those

interactions can span a lifetime. Research has shown that students'

commitment to completing university study; their intellectual growth

and development; their personal development in areas such as autonomy,

independence, and interpersonal skills; and their aspirations for

university can be significantly affected by their interactions with

academic staff (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella, 1980; Astin,

1977; Astin, 1993). As a result, some researchers have asserted that

the most important teaching takes place outside of class (Wilson, Gaff,

Dienst, Wood, and Bavry, 1975).

Research has indicated that students are the primary initiators of

student-staff interactions outside of class, so the student

perspective, previously unexplored, is essential to understanding how

these interactions develop (Kuh, et al, 1991). Correlational data

exists on the qualities of academic staff and students most likely to

interact out-of-class, but no research has explained the interplay of

these qualities that draw students into out-of-class interaction

(Wilson, et al, 1975). Also, staff and students have indicated that

these potentially influential interactions occur infrequently, a fact

with which students report dissatisfaction (Wilson, et al, 1975; Kuh,

et al, 1991; Astin, 1993; Follett, Andberg, & Hendle, 1982). As

Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blemling (1996) concluded after their

extensive review of the literature on out-of-class experiences,

"Student-[staff]2 contact and student learning are positively related

and it would seem that finding ways to promote such contact is in the

best educational interests of both students and institutions" (p. 155).

Research Questions

While there is substantial evidence that student-staff interactions are

associated with positive student outcomes, less is known about how

these interactions develop and their meaning for students. Since

students' perspectives on these interactions remains largely

unexplored, the research focuses on students' experiences of their

interactions with staff. First, there is a need to know more from

students about why they do or do not choose to spend some of their

out-of-classroom hours in contact with academic staff. So, the first

research question is: Why do students engage or not engage in

out-of-classroom interaction with academic staff? Second, there are a

number of reasons that students might initiate contact with staff --

which interactions are most likely to yield positive outcomes for

students? The second research question is: How do students describe

meaningful experiences of out-of-classroom interaction with academic

staff? Third, to learn more about these potentially important

interactions between students and staff, there is a need to learn more

about students' own interpretations of these interactions and whether

they affect their college experience. So, the third research question

is: Do students report outcomes of their out-of-class interactions with

academic staff?

Qualitative Inquiry in Higher Education

Qualitative methods are well suited to explore unanswered questions

about students' nonclassroom interactions with staff. Quantitative

studies assessing the impact of student-staff interaction on students

has focused on outcome of the college experience, or how students have

changed since they were 'input' into the college system and what

environments are associated with that change. In contrast, the goal of

some qualitative research is to describe the middle step, the

'environment', with a particular focus on students' experiences of that

middle step. So, the topic for inquiry shifts from the end product of

college experiences to students' assessments and interpretations of the

actual experiences. As Whitt (1991) emphasised in her discussion of

"artful science",

"Interest in qualitative research is increasing as higher education

practitioners and researchers seek to understand the complex qualities

and processes of institutions of higher education and their

participants, such as learning, growth, culture, and effectiveness and

find that conventional science assumptions and quantitative methods are

not sufficient to the task" (p. 406).

Research Methods

The setting was a medium-sized research university in the midwestern

United States, selected because of its participation in a national,

longitudinal study of student learning outcomes. The first phase of

the research consisted of a pilot study, implemented to refine the

research questions and the interview protocol. The second phase of the

research included expanded research questions, a larger and more

diverse sample of respondents and extended data collection, as well as

staff respondents and document analysis. The findings of the second

phase of research are the focus for this paper.

In the second phase of research, the national study data made it

possible to select two groups of undergraduate students in their fourth

and final year of study, a 'high' group and a 'low' group, based on

students' reported amount of out-of-classroom interaction with staff

relative to their peers. Two groups were selected because the goal was

to identify reasons that students do not initiate interactions as well

as the reasons that they do. In accordance with maximum variation

sampling, students were selected to represent both sexes and a variety

of cultural backgrounds and undergraduate schools (Lincoln & Guba,

1985).

Data collection consisted primarily of intensive, qualitative

interviews with eighteen students, interviewed 3-4 times each during

the Fall term of their fourth and final year. Students were asked to

reflect on their out-of-classroom interactions with staff, describing

specific events and reflecting on the immediate and cumulative impact

of those events. For the purposes of the study, out-of-class

interactions were defined as any conversation of at least fifteen

minutes in length that occurred outside of class meeting time, during

office hours, as a continuation of class discussion, in an advising

session, at a departmental event, in the residence hall, etc. The time

limit was imposed so that brief exchanges of information such as,

"Here's my paper" were excluded; conversations may have begun as brief

exchanges but to be included in the study they must have extended

beyond that.

Interviews with staff informants and document analysis of internal

materials triangulated the interview data and facilitated understanding

of the institutional setting. Measures were taken to insure the

trustworthiness, or soundness, of the study (eg, by implementing member

checks with student respondents to confirm and correct emerging themes

and by providing an audit trail of all notes and materials from data

collection and analysis) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Data analysis consisted of unitizing and coding with the assistance of

FolioVIEWS textbased manager (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman,

1984; Weitzman & Miles, 1995). Unitizing involved identifying each of

the smallest pieces of information in the interviews, whether the unit

was a phrase, sentence, or paragraph. Coding involved naming or

labelling the units based on the phenomena they represented and

employing constant comparison: a unit was tested for fit with existing

codes and in the absence of a fit, a new code was established.

Initially, codes were defined narrowly and then similar or related

codes that clustered around common ideas were grouped into overarching

themes. These themes were combined through analysis to yield the four

final research themes: points of contact, student characteristics,

academic staff characteristics, and outcomes.

Findings

The findings of the study provide answers to the three research questions:

Why do student engage or not engage in out-of-classroom interaction with academic staff?

How do students describe meaningful experiences of out-of-classroom interaction with academic staff?

Do students report outcomes of their out-of-class interactions with academic staff?

Factors that Encourage or Discourage Interactions

Three of the research themes -- points of contact, student

characteristics and academic staff characteristics -- address the

complex processes of how out-of-classroom interactions between students

and staff are facilitated or discouraged, answering the first research

question: "Why do students engage or not engage in out-of-class

interactions with academic staff?"

Points of Contact

Points of contact are settings or environments in which students

encountered staff and which influenced the occurrence of out-of-class

interactions. Points of contact that had the most influence on whether

students would interact with staff outside of class included: classroom

environments, students' academic departments, electronic mail, and

informal points of contact.

Classrooms

The size of students' classes was central in determining if they would

interact with staff out-of-class. Invariably, large classes evoked a

sense of being lost in the crowd and deterred students from initiating

interactions with staff, especially in their first year of university.

Students recalled,

"You're just a face - you know, it's the whole numbers thing...There's

a sense of being lost. It's so huge."

"I think that relationships with professors outside of the classroom

can be difficult in large settings. Large lecture halls it's going to

be so difficult to remember the students' names, much less the

professor's first name sometimes. You may not feel for any reason,

'Why would I want to get to know this person outside of class?'"

"You go to A01 Chemistry class and it's like 300 people, each person

vying for the professor's attention. It seems like you're one in a

million."

Not surprisingly, 'large lecture halls' often coincided with

lecture-style instruction, which further accentuated students'

reluctance to initiate interaction with their staff.

In contrast to large classes, small classes established connections

between the respondents and staff, connections that made the

respondents feel more comfortable initiating contact with staff outside

of class. One respondent explained why he had more out-of-classroom

contact with his staff the last year of college,

"My classes have gotten smaller. Earlier ones were the huge ones.

Maybe it's because I feel more I'm in the room with the professor."

Another student explained,

"If you're in a huge class and you have a problem and the professor

doesn't seem approachable, it's not necessary to go to the professor.

You can go to your friends, you can go to the [tutor]. I guess if

you're in smaller class, then if you needed to speak to the professor,

even if the professor seemed unapproachable, you're still probably

going to try."

"Small classes built a two-way connection between students and staff:

students felt they knew the staff member better and that the staff

member knew them better, both of which made interaction outside the

classroom more likely."

"[My classes have] smaller numbers and have more direct contact with

the professor when you're in class so you can't ignore them when you're

not in class. You have a more mutual idea of each other that

automatically lends itself more [to out-of-class interaction with

staff]."

"In a smaller class, the professor gets to know you faster and you get

to know the other students, which makes you discuss all kinds of

things. It feeds on itself and makes me more likely to see the

professor afterwards."

"In small discussion classes that I've had where the professor actually

participates as another member of discussion, you can get a feel for

what they're saying and what their ideas are and it's like another

student. If there's another student who's saying something that I

think is interesting, I might follow up with them after class...You can

also get a little better feel for their personality...You can feel like

you're relating."

Students reported that their first two years were characterised by

large lecture classes -- it wasn't until their third or fourth year

that they had regular opportunities to enrol in small classes.

Academic Departments

Respondents often reported that the staff with whom they were most

likely to have out-of-classroom interaction were in their academic

department and, typically, academic departments were a point of contact

that encouraged out-of-classroom interaction. Academic departments

created smaller environments within the larger university where

students and staff had regular contact and students felt that staff

took a particular interest in their students' progress. However, when

students compared their experiences in the sciences and in the arts and

humanities, it became clear that a student's choice of academic

department could also limit both the frequency and quality of their

out-of-classroom interactions with staff. Students noted that, in

subjects in the sciences, that they had less out-of-classroom

interaction with staff than in the arts and humanities. In addition,

the subject material coloured the quality of the interactions: in the

sciences, the material did not lend itself to discussion, so

out-of-classroom interactions were more likely to focus on an exchange

of information than an exchange of ideas.

"I guess it's just the mentality of an engineering major is very

different from the mentality of other majors...Everybody has their

mechanical pencils, everybody has their mechanical erasers. You have

to be really neat and you have to be really concise...and it reflects

in the way that we approach our professors often because you are not

supposed to forget something. It's supposed to be really logical and

really easy to get. There shouldn't be a reason why you need to track

down your professor for a problem too much. You should just be able to

figure it out yourself...And so the reasons for going to see a

professor are usually limited to how do I solve this problem or

something like that or you completely lost me on this lecture on this

one point."

"When you go to a [science] professor and ask a question about DNA, it

doesn't really strike up a conversation. I mean, you get the factual

information, you need help understanding what you're doing and that's

about it. And they may or may not ask, 'Are you understanding?'...In

other places where you can have within-discussion discussion about

different ideas, then...it's kind of an exchange of ideas instead of

like in the sciences where it's more like a one-way kind of thing."

In contrast to subjects in the sciences, students noted that subjects

in the arts and humanities facilitated student-staff collaboration

because assigned papers and performances demanded staff input in ways

other course requirements such as tests and quizzes did not. So, one

of the most commonly cited reasons students initiated interaction with

staff was to discuss a paper which included selecting and focusing the

topic, locating resources, and getting feedback to improve the next

paper. As well, students reported that the in the arts and humanities,

out-of-classroom interactions were more likely to focus on an exchange

of ideas which drew students into the interaction in a way that

interactions in the sciences did not.

"You're more apt to talk to the professor about what you think [in the

humanities]. They have more of a fountain of experience and they tell

you what they think. As opposed to [science], it's like how I think I

should solve a problem and the professor says, 'No, use this short

cut.' And that's it. You use them more for how to get short cuts done

or how to start this problem out not so much where you try to form an

idea and opinion and write a paper or explain it."

"Something like theatre is really conducive [to nonclassroom

interaction between students and staff], because you sit there and you

get all this through your personality -- your characters, and your

emotions and stuff like that. Which you just don't do in science. You

talk about bacteria."

So, students reported that the academic department in which they were

studying was an important point of contact, with the sciences providing

fewer built-in opportunities for out-of-class interaction and fewer

opportunities for students to share their ideas or to incorporate

themselves into their work. As a result, students' academic

departments had implications not only for the quantity of interactions

a student had with staff outside of class, but also for the quality of

those interactions.

Electronic Mail

Students reported that electronic mail was a recently developed point

of contact that encouraged them to interact with staff outside of

class:

"Just in the past three years, I remember when I came here as a

freshman, none of the professors had their e-mail addresses on the

[course outlines] and now all of them do...That shows another channel

of communication has really opened up."

E-mail encouraged out-of-class interactions by offering a more

convenient mode of communication, a mode that was uniquely able to

respond to students' schedules:

It's easier for me to sit in my room and type out my questions than to

go to campus and to go to their office hours and schedule it around all

the other things I have scheduled.

"When I have an idea that comes to me at three o' clock in the morning,

I e-mail the prof and then I go and see them later on."

"I really would e-mail before I would go in [to see staff] but I think

that's also because I can never make office hours...Most of the work

that I get done is between 10 [p.m.] and 1 [a.m.]. They might be up,

but I'm not going to call and obviously they're not going to have

office hours at those hours."

"Using e-mail was a less intimidating way for students to initiate

interactions because it minimised some of the risks inherent in

initiating face-to-face interactions. First, students could reduce

their risk of embarrassment because e-mail allowed them to practice

what they wanted to say and it provided a buffer between themselves and

staff:

One advantage is you can figure out what you want to say before you

send it. And you can edit if you want to."

"I've always felt that I communicate a little better on paper than I do

when I'm speaking, so that it allows me to think through more

thoroughly what I'm saying."

"Because you're not right there, face-to-face, he can't ask you any

trick questions. There's no personal pressure. And if they think what

you're asking is silly or something, you can't see their face to react

to it."

"I was intimidated [by my professor], so I started my interaction with

him over e-mail because, I figured, 'Okay, he knows my name, but he

doesn't know that my name goes with my face.' So, I could show up in

class every day and he wouldn't know who I was...Even though he'll know

my name, he'll know my face, and even if I ask the most ridiculous

question in the world, he can't identify me."

E-mail also encouraged out-of-class interaction with staff because it

offered a less intimidating way to make the first non classroom contact

with staff with the advantage of not having to interrupt staff and

possibly catch them at a bad time. Students explained:

"What I have done a lot more recently is I'll e-mail them and then go

in and talk to them. So that it's sort of like you have the basics

before you ever go talk to them."

"Once you've e-mailed a professor a few times, it's more likely that

you'll talk to them later, just because you've kind of broken the ice."

"I just asked it as, 'If you have room, could I come talk to you

sometime?' This way I didn't bother them in their office hours and

they can respond at their leisure."

"I would rather e-mail a professor than make a phone call because it's

not as invasive. He may be doing work, he may be on the other line,

and I'm calling him for a question on homework. Whereas e-mail, it can

sit and wait and my questions aren't that important. He'll e-mail me

back later."

Because e-mail allowed students to 'break the ice' with staff in ways

that were less intimidating, e-mail served as a bridge that led to

face-to-face interactions between students and staff. And, perhaps the

most important implication of the change that has occurred with the

introduction of e-mail is that, for students who reported being too

intimidated to initiate interaction in person, e-mail afforded an

alternative form of communication through which they were able to have

frequent out-of-classroom contact with their staff.

Informal Points of Contact

Some of the points of contact that led to out-of-classroom interactions

were more removed from the activities of the classroom, such as social

events and residential colleges. Encounters in these settings were

often positive for students and filtered into other points of contact

to make it more likely students would initiate interactions with staff

in other settings. Students discussed the advantages of having

opportunities to interact with staff at social events such as campus

lectures, departmental events, or student-receptions:

"I like it because most of the [staff] members are interesting people

to me. So I like getting to know them in a social setting. And if you

see a professor in a social setting then your relationship in the

classroom, it increases exponentially depending on how much more open

you feel, showing them your work and asking them questions."

"I think once you are able to talk to a [staff] member [that you meet

at a social event] it makes it even easier to talk to somebody in your

own department. It's just because you know what the etiquette is, you

know what stuff to ask, you feel more comfortable approaching people

you see as some kind of authority figure, you mix with them outside and

it makes it easier to mix with them in the classroom."

Informal events were not without their challenges or risks for

respondents; students talked about the initial awkwardness of

interacting with staff in social settings. Students expressed a sense

of personal vulnerability, of feeling intimidated approaching authority

figures out of the classroom and not knowing where or how to start a

conversation. For this reason, it was often helpful if there was a

structured starting point for the interaction, whether it was a talk

that preceded a reception or an event:

"If it's just a reception, then you go and what are you going to say?

Whereas having some sort of talk first, it's the bridge, it gives you

something else to talk about, a way to initiate [interaction with

staff]...I'm not going to show up and not have anything to say or no

basis for conversation."

"If you're going out to a theatre or a play or something, sometimes you

can start talking about the play afterward or you can talk about other

plays you've seen beforehand. It gives you some kind of context that

you start talking."

Residential colleges are living and learning residence halls that were

established to promote out-of-class interactions between students and

staff. Students reported being pleasantly surprised by the

accessibility of staff in the residential colleges and how the colleges

offered students unique opportunities for meaningful interactions with

staff:

"I was impressed that [in the residential colleges], I could sit and

eat with the Dean of Students [of my undergraduate school] and talk to

her and she would know who I was eventually, and it just surprised me."

"I had an interesting conversation with [my adviser]. She came over

for a reception [in my residential college] and I was talking to her

and I was reminding her how she was my adviser and she explained to me

why she did things a certain way. That was very meaningful because I

finally understood where she was coming from."

"I got to know a [professor] of mine and he would eat in [my college]

so I figured I would go chat with him. It was good that he was in a

setting like that because I would approach him at lunch but I might not

necessarily have run up to him on he sidewalk. When you have lunch

it's a time to go over and happen to sit by him and start to talk about

his class or whatever, because that's a social setting where people

experience interaction."

By affording a more relaxing setting for students to initiate

out-of-classroom interaction with staff, informal points of contact

helped increase both the frequency and the quality of students'

interactions with staff.

Student Characteristics

The two central student characteristics that determined if students

initiated interaction with staff included whether students were new to

college and whether they believed they had a need for interaction (eg,

a problem or question). In addition, individual differences emerged in

how students initiated interactions with staff.

Newness

Respondents pointed to the importance of providing opportunities for

first-year students to interact with staff since this is when

respondents reported feeling most intimidated by staff. There were two

salient changes in their experiences as students as they moved from

high school to university. First, students had a different sense of

themselves as learners. In high school, respondents were among the

best and brightest of their peers but at the university where the best

and the brightest from other high schools were now their peers,

respondents felt a new sense of tentativeness approaching staff.

"Most people were at the top of their class in high school...and you

come to a school where you're not necessarily top of the class and you

don't really stick out and your personality is maybe not that much

better than everybody else's. And so you're not really sure where

you're going to fit in with the professor, if you are just this grade

or are you a name that goes with this grade, are you a face that goes

with the grade...I think the [first year students] don't realise that

they can actually go and talk to a professor."

"I expected [staff] to be like the teachers in high school, where

they'd be pretty involved at the school -- I knew a lot of the [staff].

And I knew a lot about them, because I was in student council and

sports and all that stuff like that. And I got here and it was really

hard...I am average, now, if anything."

Second, students experienced a change in their relationships with

staff. -- staff seemed impersonal and inaccessible compared to high

school teachers.

"When I got to college, it was like a whole different ball game. That

was my first impression and my first expectation of [staff] was that

they really can't do too much and I'm going to have to struggle and use

my other resources, like tutors and stuff, but I really can't get to

know the [staff]."

By their fourth and final year, many of the students were less

intimidated by staff, which they attributed to their own maturation as

well as to having had positive encounters with their staff:

"I guess I've gotten accustomed to being around very prestigious

[staff] members, very intelligent people in their field here. I've

gotten a little older. I've learned to respect the professor but to

know that they are people like the rest of us. It's an aging thing, as

you get older. When you come to college, it's new and after being here

four years, things change a little. To a certain extent, there's this

developmental process, getting older and stuff."

"I've learned a lot of other things [from my interactions with staff]

and it's largely because I was able to interact with some [staff]

informally and that gave me the confidence to interact with others."

"I think that once you start talking to [staff] members, it's easier

because you know how to approach it the very first time. You know kind

of what approach to take whenever you go into their office to talk

about something."

It was important for respondents to have positive interactions with

staff to increase the likelihood that they would approach staff again

in the future. As students reflected on the differences between their

approach to staff when they were new to university and when they were

in their final year, many of them regretted that they did not overcome

their intimidation sooner:

"That's one thing I wish I had done earlier [is interact with my

professors]...I wish someone sat me down and told me, "Get a grip, go

to your professors." There are plenty of times that I needed to go to

my professors that I didn't go because of my own lack of

self-confidence, not quite understanding the university system and not

being strong enough."

"I wish somebody told me, 'Don't worry at all, go see the professor.

If they act like a jerk, then don't worry about it, it's not your

fault.' Some are like that and some aren't and you just kind of have

to search out the ones who aren't."

"I think at times I was intimidated when I shouldn't have been, looking back on it."

Need

Respondents' experiences also emphasised the importance of staff

encouraging students to utilise office hours to discuss course

material. This is because students explained that, to be able to

approach a staff member, especially the first time, they felt that they

had to have a justifiable reason, such as a question or a problem.

Students commented:

"I'd always felt that if I didn't have a specific question I wasn't

going to go in and talk to them and I still really don't because I

don't want to waste their time."

"I didn't have much non-class interaction with [my professor] at all.

I didn't need to because she taught it so well we didn't need to bother

her outside of class. I really appreciated it and I definitely

respected her a lot. I always wanted to go up to her and say I loved

her class."

As these comments illustrate, without having a demonstrated need, such

as a question or a problem, students were reluctant to impinge on staff

time outside of class.

Individual Differences

One of the purposes of the study was to determine whether the

differences between students with a high and low frequencies of

interaction with staff could be explained by varying levels of student

interest. It could not since, for many students, their interest did

not always translate to out-of-classroom interactions with staff. In

fact, among the students with low interactions was a group of students

who reported that they did not initiate out-of-classroom interactions

with staff because they were not interested, their time was more likely

to be filled with other activities. And the students with the highest

frequency of interactions reported a high level of interest, they

readily initiated interactions with staff, and their willingness to

initiate interactions was undeterred by negative interactions with

staff. However, in the middle of the continuum were students who were

interested in interacting with staff outside-of-class but they depended

on some initiative from staff or they reluctantly initiated interaction

but were strongly influenced by staff members' responses to them. Most

of the students were in the middle of the continuum, including many

among the "low" interactors. For example, these students with low

interactions who were interested in out-of-classroom interactions were

more likely than students at the high end of the continuum to have been

surprised by their limited access to staff when they came to university

from high school and to reflect that they felt lost or overwhelmed in

large classes:

"I think that when I was coming here I just expected that [staff] would

be more approachable or that I'd feel that I could approach them more

than what actually happened, just because of what the brochure said,

but all the universities say that."

"In a big class, you have those people who will go in and go to office

hours and there are other people who just get lost. That was me. I

kind of got lost in this big classroom where I just went to lecture

every day and the professor could've been a guest lecturer for all that

I used him for...It kind of inhibits people."

"You go to A01 Chemistry class and it's like 300 people, each person

vying for the professor's attention, it seems like you're one in a

million."

Students in the middle of the continuum explained that negative

experiences short-circuited their efforts to initiate out-of-classroom

interaction.

"I had a bad experience winter quarter with one of the [staff]...I

think that hurt me for a long time because I couldn't go to my

professors."

"I think sometimes I'm waiting for [staff to initiate contact with me].

One professor disappoints me or is not conducive to talking to them,

then it's easier just to let it be."

For these students, a negative outcome from their efforts to initiate

out-of-classroom interaction could mean that they experienced a setback

in their willingness to initiate out-of-classroom interactions in the

future.

Academic Staff Characteristics

There were several ways that academic staff characteristics (qualities

of staff members, as they were perceived by the student respondents)

affected the occurrence of out-of-classroom interactions. First,

respondents' comments indicated that, in general, they perceived a gap

between themselves and staff: staff were separate, distant, at a higher

level than students. Students were acutely aware of staff members'

dual roles as teacher-scholars which enhanced students' intimidation

and their reluctance to encroach on staff research time:

"I never went to his office hours because people kept telling me how

nationally famous he was. I knew nothing about economics. I had a

really hard time in the class but I wouldn't have gone to see him

because I wouldn't want to waste his time."

"I thought I'd just look to see how many papers he's written and it

came up to be [more than 50]. I mean, this just boggles the

mind...Just your thought of them makes it hard to approach them because

they seem so accomplished."

"I assume they are busy...in that you've got your classes that you have

to teach, and then when they're over you've got things you have to

grade and then you have research or writing that you have to do and you

have committee meetings that you have to go to."

Students commented that because of the gap, from a distance staff

seemed inaccessible and not quite real:

"Professors are living in a bubble that doesn't extend beyond their

office or their teaching classrooms...I think that at a university like

[this] the bubble is there no matter what for all the professors. It's

the question of whether or not they extend out of the bubble."

"[The staff] are movie stars in their field. If a movie star walks in

here, it's expected that we are amazed...the same with professors.

They are geniuses. They are on the cutting edge of their work. They

are the movie stars in [my field]."

The gap between students and their professors was not necessarily

permanent or fixed. There were several factors that determined whether

staff reinforced or dissolved some of the barriers that the gap erected

to out-of-class interaction between students and staff.

Roles as Teachers

Students reported that the classroom was often the forum where staff

initially set the tone for out-of-classroom interaction and that how

staff defined their roles as teachers determined whether students would

initiate out-of-classroom interaction. Students noted that when staff

were committed to and enthusiastic about their teaching, when they

placed a priority on students' understanding of the material, and when

they de-emphasised the student-staff hierarchy, students felt that they

were more approachable outside of class. First, staff who valued

teaching and demonstrated an interest in their subject material engaged

students' interest and communicated an interest in student learning:

"Some professors I feel are just here because they want to be able to

do research. But if the professor is here because they actually want

to teach and they want to educate students [they're more approachable

out of class]."

"He was literally enlivened by [the subject]. He would walk in and

he'd just take off his sweater. And he always took it off over his

head and his hair would go ruffled and he'd smooth it down and he'd go,

'OK.' And he would pull down a blackboard and just start...But he'd

just go for fifty minutes...Maybe it was because he was very

charismatic in class. So there wasn't any fear of going into his

office hours."

"If she feels passionately about something you know that if you feel

passionately about something too that you can go and talk to her. It

makes her seem so much more human and definitely someone that you want

to get to know."

Second, a theme that ran throughout students' comments about staff

with whom they felt comfortable initiating out-of-class interaction was

that these staff emphasised student understanding of the course

material:

"They care about your level of understanding of the material. It shows

that they care more about you, the students, that you're learning, that

they're not here just to teach, they want to make sure you understand."

"He's the type of person that, he won't just give you an answer...he

kind of prods you and he makes you think...I feel like he really cared

if you were getting along and if you were understanding the material."

The third way in which staff defined their roles as teachers that

affected out-of-classroom interactions was the roles staff created for

themselves as teachers and for the students as learners, whether they

reinforced the dichotomy that students already sensed.

"If a professor thinks they're way above you, they let you know...I

remember a professor who -- it was obvious he was speaking down to 250

people at the same time and he knew it. It was just really obvious.

You know when someone has an attitude when they can talk down to a room

full of people...If they talk down to you in lecture, you're not going

to talk to them personally because they're probably going to talk down

to you the same way, if not worse."

"I've only had a couple that I have felt completely comfortable going

to. Some are kind of -- they come off as kind of intimidating and just

like they're not really interested in speaking with you on a normal

level. They're always lecturing, even when you go to them, they're

still lecturing to you and looking down."

In contrast, staff who elevated students' status as novices by valuing

students opinions helped dissolve the barriers created by students'

perceptions of the student-staff dichotomy.

"The [staff] that I've had interactions with [out of class], they want

to know what students think."

"[Staff who are more approachable out of class] validate the student's

opinions and comments and thoughts as well as their own...they give the

impression that they care what I have to say."

"[My professor] came up to me and specifically said, 'Well, what do you

think about [the speaker] and what she had to say?...[That said to me]

'I have enough respect for you that I want to hear what you have to say

about this'...And that's where you start to cross the line into being a

contemporary."

Availability

Second, how staff made their time available, evidenced by how they

discussed and structured their office hours, affected the occurrence of

interactions. Students gauged whether to initiate interaction based on

how staff talked about the time they set aside for office hours:

"I'd be much more likely to come in and see someone who was like,

'Yeah, I have my office hours on Tuesday and Thursday, in the afternoon

from like 12-5.' I know they're just going to be sitting in there

doing work. Whereas a professor who's like, 'You must make an

appointment with me,' I know they're going to be sitting there looking

at me when I come in the room and be like, 'Yeah, what do you want?

Ask your question.'"

"You can just tell by the way they teach. If they say, 'Please come

into office hours' ten times a week. Or if they just say, 'Yeah, my

office hours are here.' Or they don't even say it at all, it's just on

the syllabus and you have to go find it. You can tell -- you kind of

get a sense in that way. The kind of vibes you get."

"I've had professors that will just mumble [when their office hours

are] and you're like, 'What? Oh, you don't want me to stop by I take it.'"

Then, students got a sense of staff members' actual availability based

on how they reacted to students efforts to initiate interactions, as

the two contrasting examples below illustrate:

"He makes you feel like you're not bothering him...I just feel like,

whenever I talk to him, I don't feel like I'm really wasting his time."

"I wanted to borrow a book that I needed to have, so as I went in he

was putting on his coat while I'm asking him to borrow a book, so he

said, 'Yeah, I'll bring the book in tomorrow. And here's a couple

other names you can look up that would be helpful.' But I would've

liked to have had a little bit more conversation with him and asking

him somewhat about the book...It wasn't like I wanted to chat about his

family...I don't think I'll go back to see [him]."

Relating as 'Real' People

Third, whether staff bridged 'the gap' between students and staff to

relate to students as 'real' people affected whether students were

willing to initiate out-of-classroom interactions with them. There

were a number of ways that staff could relate to students as real

people. First, when staff communicated a genuine interest in students

as individuals, for example, by inquiring into students' career plans

and their academic progress, then those staff seemed more approachable

to students than staff whose interests did not extend beyond the

subject matter.

"He really is into talking, to helping students. He doesn't just want

to help them, he wants to know who they are."

"I know one professor in particular always asks me how everything else

is going on my life, and is real concerned about what I'm going to do,

what I'm going to do next year."

"One of the most powerful ways that staff communicated a genuine

interest in students was to know their names; when staff didn't know

students' names, students were discouraged from initiating interaction

with them."

"I remember something about one of my labs or an exam and the

professor came up to me after class and said, 'Oh, I have your lab or

exam up here,' and knowing who I was...that was very interesting for me

and even took me aback that he even knew what my name was."

"I ran into one of my old instructors and I hadn't seen him in like two

years...Just in the two minutes that we talked, he remembered my name,

remembered what year I was, asked, 'What are you going to do next

year?'"

"One quarter I went to office hours a couple of times and my professor

didn't know who I was and that was very frustrating for me. I kind of

got an attitude and then I didn't go to office hours the next quarter."

Second, in addition to demonstrating to students that they were

interested in them as individuals, staff who presented themselves as

real people seemed more approachable and students were more likely to

initiate out-of-class interaction with them. By allowing the class

conversation to extend beyond class material to include the staff

members' personal experiences, by demonstrating a sense of humour, by

relating to the student perspective, and by inviting students to call

them by their first names, staff could seem more like real people.

Examples of each of these qualities follow:

"[This professor] often uses his own life examples and telling what he

was like in college and he went to [this university]. So, his stories

are even more amusing because they are similar to ours. He seems more

accessible because of that."

"If that person has a sense of humour, it makes things a lot easier [to

initiate out-of-classroom interaction], because you know that person is

a personable type person. If you don't have a sense of humour, you

don't not necessarily get along with other people, but you have to have

a bit of a sense of humour to get along with people. Life is

humorous."

"The things she would talk about -- Seinfeld -- she would talk about

when she was in college. You know, she would tell stories, and she

would react the way we would react...Everyone felt like they could open

up to her more, maybe. They weren't as embarrassed to say things."

"My professor asked me to call her by her first name...So that helps.

Then the intimidation factor leaves."

Keeping in mind students' initial impressions that staff seemed not

quite real, living in a 'bubble', it follows that ways in which staff

did prove themselves to be real and to be genuine encouraged students

to take the risk to initiate out-of-classroom interactions.

Meaningful Interactions

The second research question was: "How do students describe meaningful

experiences of out-of-classroom interaction with staff?" Meaningful

interactions are defined as positive interactions that encouraged

students to initiate contact with staff again, interactions that

related to positive outcomes of interactions, and those that students

identified as meaningful in personal and/or academic ways. Qualities

of interactions that made them meaningful echo those characteristics of

staff that first encouraged students to initiate interactions. First,

meaningful interactions were affected by how staff members defined

their roles as teachers. When staff actively encouraged students to

engage in out-of-class interaction or when they worked closely with

students to help students achieve their potential, these efforts

yielded meaningful interactions for students. For example, students

recounted:

"He would say...'So you're coming to see me in office hours today,

right?' I wasn't planning on it but I guess I am...That was my

transition from not going to professors [outside of class] and going to

professors because he expected me to come."

"So I went to his office hours after I got the paper back, because his

comments said he thought I could do better...[I said] 'this is my level

of writing. I'm happy with it.'...And he said, 'Well, yes, you are

capable of it.' And every time I came back, he said I could do

it...because of that, it motivated me."

Second, related to how staff made their time available to students,

students' accounts of meaningful interactions included those where the

staff made time to make students a priority out of class and when they

made significant investments of their time in students:

"She'd read it and critiqued it and obviously put a lot of time and

work into it and gave back brilliant advice...She'd just put in a lot

of time when she didn't really have to...She's doing things that she

doesn't have to do at a time when she doesn't have to spend time

thinking about students."

"He said he wanted to help me work this out...he was helpful in that

way and he wanted me to keep him informed and so he was very open to

keeping contact with me and that kind of thing...He had no stake in

being in contact with me in a sense, he had nothing to gain from it, he

just wanted to help me out."

"[Meaningful interactions are] the ones where the professor shows that

he or she is going above and beyond the call of duty. The ones that go

beyond relating specifically to the paper that I'm working on, where

they ask, 'How are things going?' or they spend a lot of time dealing

with the paper as opposed to, 'Yeah, that sounds good.'"

Third, when staff related as 'real' people with students, this not

only encouraged students to initiate out-of-class interactions with

staff, but could also lead to interactions that were meaningful for

students. Examples of meaningful interactions when staff related to

students as real people included when staff showed an interest in the

student as an individual or when staff were willing to talk about

themselves:

"Things like that, those kinds of informal [interactions], after you

get the paperwork done, take one or two minutes to see what's going

on...that makes me feel good."

"I came in [to talk to him about a summer job] and he wanted to know a

lot about me. Like, what were my career aspirations, why was I doing

this, what did I want to do, stuff like that...So it was, I guess, his

bit of kindness for the day or something...that I would consider

meaningful."

"It created more of a while person of who he was, like he was telling

me about he and his wife going [abroad]. And the travels that they had

done. It was an experience outside of [the university] and how it

affected him and the happiness that he had from that experience. It

was really a good connection with him because that was something I want

also."

"I like that [kind of] interaction [when staff talk about themselves],

I think it's really cool when you can talk to a professor just like a

normal person."

Whether they related to staff roles as teachers, staff availability, or

to staff relating as 'real' people, meaningful interactions shared in

common the fact that they extended beyond an exchange of information

which could have occurred in the classroom. Out-of-classroom

interactions that were most meaningful were the ones that somehow

managed to leave the classroom behind. One student explained the

sentiments of many of the respondents:

"The other stuff that you're not going to get from books is where the

non-classroom interaction becomes meaningful...I think with most

non-classroom interaction, you do end up having some sort of agenda

related to class. That's almost unavoidable. But if you can expand

beyond that, if you can try to make the weak ties, your strong ties

would be the classroom and the weak ties may be that this professor

worked in the field in which you are interested...things that would be

tangentially or weakly related [to class] would be the most

meaningful."

Outcomes

The final research theme relates to outcomes and answers the research

question: "Do students report outcomes of their out-of-class

interactions with staff?" When students reflected on whether their

interactions with staff had affected them, they reported getting "a lot

of education" from these interactions, directly connecting the

interactions to enhanced learning:

"The most important thing, I think, [about out-of-classroom interaction

with staff] is that you can get a lot of education out of it. And then

it will be more than just listening to the lectures. It's more than

just reading the book, because you're actually processing and by going

in you can process ideas and solve some questions."

"[Out-of-classroom interaction with staff] helps the student learn

more. I mean, I've learned a lot more from my papers and things by

talking with the professors about it."

"I usually learn the most during those times [when I go to office

hours] as opposed to being in class and having a problem and looking it

up in the book."

Companion to the enhanced learning that resulted from students'

interactions with staff was improved academic performance by the

students: they performed better on their assignments which they

believed was reflected in higher marks.

An additional outcome students reported was that the interactions with

staff softened the initial barrier students felt between themselves and

their staff. Students were able to see the staff as more 'real' or

'human' which made them less intimidating and therefore made it more

likely that students would initiate interactions again.

"[Through out-of-classroom interaction], you get a more complete

picture of the person. It's not just a role any more, it's a person."

"I think that's another reason why I think it's important to get to

know professors because you have to see them as human beings, you have

to see them as not infallible fountains of knowledge, but as people

that work hard, that studied this material and have gained and achieved

this knowledge by studying it, not just because they were born with it,

naturally, gifted."

Interestingly, for some students being able to see the staff as 'human'

facilitated another outcome -- learning. It was important to some

students' learning that they know the staff as people:

"With [my professor], what I learn in his class is so much more than if

I didn't know him, just because I respect him as a human being and his

knowledge. I know that he knows a phenomenal amount of stuff...I

respect what I learn in class that much more."

Out-of-class interactions with staff also enhanced students' self-image

by facilitating a greater sense of confidence in their abilities and by

emphasising that the students were valued members of the university

community:

"The two professors that I established pretty close relationships with

did wonders for my self-confidence. I mean, they sort of convinced me

that I did have half a clue of what I was talking about."

"I think [out-of-classroom interaction with staff has] had kind of a

stimulating effect on me as far as my experiences at [university],

being comfortable in classes as a student...being able, being willing

to express myself and my ideas. I think it comes partially from having

interactions with [staff] and knowing that they find them valid, that

they are looking for that and want that."

"I think [out-of-classroom interaction] can kind of elevate a student

to a higher plane, just like the interest...If a person has an interest

in a student, he or she can really encourage that student because

someone cares about them. And the student will feel that she is

valuable."

"If they try to recognise you, let you know that [they know] you're

alive, then...you feel important, they have a vested interest in your

understanding of the material. If you dropped off the face of the

earth, you would be missed."

Some of the outcomes identified by students echo findings of previous

research. But because this is the first research to offer an

understanding of students' experiences of out-of-classroom

interactions, this research illuminates and explains the connection

between interactions and student outcomes. For example, other research

has identified academic achievement and intellectual development as

outcomes of interaction (eg., Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Astin,

1993). Respondents in this study explained that not only did

out-of-class interactions augment their learning about the material,

but that the interactions enhanced students' commitment to their

academic work because they then felt a personal responsibility to the

professors.

"I've noticed when I have one-on-one interaction with a [staff] member

I feel more personally accountable for the work that I do and more

motivated to get really interested."

"This class could potentially be one of the worst classes in my

career...But I kinda - I want to do well cause now he knows me so I

want to do well on my reports and I want to know what's going on in

lab."

Discussion

The findings of the study have a number of implications for practice within higher education.

Points of Contact

Students reported that the size of classes exerted a powerful influence

on the occurrence of out-of-classroom interactions with their staff.

Because of the connection that previous research has established

between student-staff interactions and academic outcomes, this suggests

that class size has the potential to affect college student outcomes,

such as learning and intellectual development. So, it is important

that students have the opportunity to enrol in small classes and the

earlier in their university careers the better. It is unfortunate that

students in this study reported that the time when they were most

intimidated by staff was also the time when they were predominantly in

large, lecture classes, which only served to further enhance their

reluctance to approach staff.

Academic departments were important points of contact for

out-of-classroom interactions, creating a smaller environment within

the larger university where students felt staff demonstrated a genuine

investment in them and their progress. Variability in the ability of

academic departments to encourage out-of-classroom interaction depended

on students' field of study: students in the sciences reported that

their quantity and quality of interactions were lower than those for

students in the arts and humanities. It may be useful for staff in the

sciences to create structured opportunities for students to collaborate

one-on-one with staff, either by inviting students to work in staff

laboratories or by requiring projects that require input from staff.

The findings of this study also suggest that students in the sciences

may need additional encouragement from staff to initiate interactions

because of students' perceptions that their staff expect them to work

independently, without input from staff. It was as if students would

have demonstrated a personal weakness if they were to initiate

out-of-classroom interaction. Finally, since the course material in

the sciences may limit out-of-classroom interactions to exchanges of

information, staff in the sciences may need to take the initiative to

broaden the scope of the interaction to invite students to reflect on

their learning in the subject, their academic progress, their career

plans or other areas of importance to students.

E-mail is a point of contact not addressed in previous research on

student-staff interaction outside of class. The fact that access to

e-mail encouraged students who were otherwise reluctant to initiate

interaction suggests that institutions that offer e-mail will not only

facilitate student-staff interaction already occurring, but may

increase the proportion of students benefiting from out-of-class

interactions with their staff. E-mail and electronic discussion groups

have the potential to extend the boundaries of the classroom, to allow

discussions from class to continue beyond scheduled meeting times.

This offers a strong incentive for institutions interested in

encouraging out-of-classroom learning to provide their students with

access to e-mail.

Informal events that provided opportunities for students to interact

with staff outside of class, especially those that had some structured

starting point, facilitated the process of students seeing staff as

more 'real' and 'human' and increased students comfort in initiating

out-of-classroom interactions with staff.

Student Characteristics

From an understanding of the student characteristics affecting the

occurrence of out-of-classroom interaction between students and staff,

it was evident that students were particularly intimidated by staff in

their first year when their initial impressions of staff suggested that

out-of-classroom interaction would be impossible. Many of the students

in the study reported that it wasn't until their third or fourth year

that they had regular interactions with staff outside of class. It is

important for universities to provide small, seminar subjects

especially for first year students, in order to counteract the

predominance of large, lecture classes in their timetable. Or, within

a larger lecture subject, it may be useful to schedule small tutorials

with first year students or to have office hours reserved especially

for first year students. Through such interventions, first year

students may have an opportunity to develop their confidence to

initiate interaction with staff earlier in their academic career than

they might otherwise.

Students reported that, many times, they did not initiate interaction

with staff because they did not have a problem or a question. Staff

may need to help adjust students' expectations by encouraging them to

initiate interactions to discuss course material, beyond questions or

problems, or to discuss subject-related interests or course or career

planning. In addition, by creating out-of-classroom opportunities for

students to interact with staff (eg, cultural events, paper

conferences, field trips) educators can help enhance the number of

reasons and opportunities students have for initiating contact with

their staff.

One of the purposes of the study was to determine whether the

differences in students with a high frequency of interaction and

students with a low frequency of interaction could be explained by

varying levels of student interest. While some "low" interacting

students reported little interest in out-of-class interactions with

staff, most of the students reported a desire to interact with their

staff outside of class. Many of the students with low interactions had

attempted to initiate interaction but had been discouraged from further

interactions by environments or by staff members' responses to their

efforts to initiate interaction. It is important for universities

administrators to consider environments, staff attitudes and programs

that currently exist that might represent barriers to students who

would otherwise initiate interaction outside of class.

Academic Staff Characteristics

There were several ways that staff characteristics affected

out-of-classroom interaction, including how staff approached their

roles as teachers, how they made their time available, and whether they

related to students as real people. Each of these demonstrates that a

staff member's approach in the classroom sends important signals about

their 'approachability' outside of class. This suggests that

universities can increase the out-of-classroom interaction and

associated benefits for students by considering teacher evaluations in

making staffing decisions and by encouraging staff to value their

teaching through initiatives such as staff development programs and

teaching excellence awards.

When staff made their time available to students, it encouraged

students to initiate interaction with their staff. If universities do

not do so already, it is important to strongly encourage staff to hold

regular, advertised office hours as a first step towards encouraging

students to initiate out-of-classroom interactions and as a signal to

students that such interactions are an important aspect of the learning

process.

Universities could be innovative by providing seed money for field

trips or cultural outings, student-staff lunches or informal social

events to facilitate opportunities for students and staff to relate to

each other as 'real' people. Students' comments about their most

meaningful interactions made it clear that opportunities such as these

to extend beyond the formal business of class lead to an increase in

quantity and quality of interactions between students and staff.

Student Outcomes

One of the most important findings of the study is that students

confirmed that student-staff interactions are at the epicentre of a

number of positive student outcomes. Students reported a number of

outcomes of their interactions with staff, including enhanced learning

and academic performance, enhanced self-image, and a changed view of

staff as more 'real' or 'human', which encouraged students to initiate

further interactions. Students' comments about the effect of

student-staff interaction on their learning offers support for previous

research which emphasised that the most important teaching takes place

outside of class (Wilson, et al, 1975). And the fact that positive

interactions encouraged students to initiate further interactions with

their staff stresses the importance and benefits of facilitating

positive interactions between students and staff: the frequency and

quality of students' interactions with staff can flourish if students

have an opportunity to have a positive interaction with just one staff

member.

Conclusion

This study offers the first, in-depth exploration of students' views of

how students and staff navigate the initial distance between them to

interact out-of-class, what qualities of the interactions make them

meaningful for students, and what outcomes students identify from those

interactions. Overall, the findings of this study point to the fact

that the classroom -- it's size, the teaching style, the format -- has

a vitally important effect on whether students are drawn into

out-of-classroom interactions during some of their '70 hours' of

discretionary time each week. Because spending discretionary time in

out-of-classroom interactions is associated with student outcomes such

as learning, self-esteem, and staying enrolled at university, the

benefits of efforts to increase student-staff interaction outside of

class can span a lifetime for students.

Endnotes

1 The terms 'academic staff' and 'staff' are used interchangeably to

denote regular, full-time academic staff responsible for teaching or

academic advising of undergraduate students.

2 In the U.S., 'faculty' denotes 'staff'. So, references to 'faculty'

term have been changed to 'staff', the change indicated by brackets.

References

Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs,

attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years

revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Follett, C.V., Andberg, W.L., & Hendle, D.D. (1982). Perceptions of the

college environment by women and men students. Journal of College

Student Personnel, 23 (6), 525-530.

Kuh, G., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., Andreas, R., Lyons, J., Strange, C.,

Krehbiel, L., & MacKay, K. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful

approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the

classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A

sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pascarella, E. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college

outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545-595.

Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., & Blemling, G. (1996). Students'

out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive

development: A literature review. Journal of College Student

Development, 37 (2), 149-162.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students:

Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Tampke, D. (1993). A summary of faculty interaction programs at

ACUHO-I institutions. Journal of College and University Student

Housing, 23, 24-30.

Wilson, R.C. (1975). College professors and their impact on students.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Weitzman, E.B., & Miles, M.B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative

data analysis: A software sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kristie Daniel DiGregorio is a Research Fellow for Yooroang Garang: The

Centre for Indigenous Health Studies at the University of Sydney,

Australia. She may be contacted at:

K.DanielDigregorio@cchs.usyd.edu.au, P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 2141,

Australia.