Conceptualizing Success in Therapeutic Wilderness Experiences: The Creation and Maintenance of Instructor-Participant Relationships

Researchers have noted that relationships created between instructors and clients in therapeutic wilderness experiences are unique (Russell, 2003; Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2001; Sklar, Anderson, & Autry, 2007; Taniguchi et al., 2009), but little research has been done to explore these relationships. The present study is an investigation of how instructors build and maintain relationships with participants, conceptualize these relationships, and define success in these tasks. Nine instructors from a wilderness program for at-risk youth participated in interviews. Data were analyzed using a line-by-line coding technique. Results of this study add to existing research on wilderness therapy and therapeutic wilderness experiences, provide models of successful instructing, and guide programs and instructors in the services they provide to their participants.

Freshman Friendship and University Connection

The purpose of this study is to understand better the support systems available to freshmen students at the University of Connecticut and how those support systems impact their connection to the university. The study involves two questionnaires, one distributed at the beginning of their first semester and a second follow-up questionnaire at the end of that same semester. Two main research questions are the focus of this study. The first question is whether freshmen who make friends on campus feel more connected than freshmen who report having fewer friends. The second question concerns whether freshmen who feel more connected to the university report stronger feelings of support than freshmen who do not feel connected to the university. This study has found that support at the university level needs to be more focused on individual students because freshmen who make friends at the university report experiencing greater levels of support. Parents, faculty, and counselors need to reexamine the way in which they provide support in order to reach those students who are not connecting with friends. The First Year Experience Program could better serve freshmen students by focusing on the relationship between students, instructor, and mentor to build friendships within the FYE class, which will foster friendships and support.

Do Proctored Exams Matter In Online Classes?

Does the format of assessment (proctored or un-proctored exams) affect test scores in online principles of economics classes? This study uses data from two courses of principles of economics taught by the same instructor to gain some insight into this issue. When final exam scores are regressed against human capital factors, the R-squared statistic is 61.6% for the proctored format exams while it is only 12.2% for the un-proctored format. Three other exams in the class that had the proctored final were also un-proctored and also produced lower R-squared values, averaging 30.5%. These two findings suggest that some cheating may have taken place in the un-proctored exams. Although it appears some cheating took place, the results suggest that cheating did not pay for these students since the proctored exam grades were 4.9 points higher than the un-proctored exam grades although this difference was significantly different at only the 10% level. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the class that had the proctored exam although this must have occurred by chance since the students did not know if the exams were going to be proctored in advance so there is no issue of selection bias. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 17% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 83% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that the un-proctored exam format does not encourage as much studying as the proctored format reducing both the returns to human capital and the exam scores.

Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?

Our paper asks the question: Does mode of instruction format (live or online format) effect test scores in the principles of macroeconomics classes? Our data are from several sections of principles of macroeconomics, some in live format, some in online format, and all taught by the same instructor. We find that test scores for the online format, when corrected for sample selection bias, are four points higher than for the live format, and the difference is statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the classes that had the online format. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 25% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 75% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that for the relatively older student with the appropriate online learning skill set, and with schedule constrains created by family and job, the online format provides them with a more productive learning environment than does the alternative traditional live class format. Also, because our data are limited to the student s academic transcript, we recommend future research include data on learning style characteristics, and the constraints formed by family and job choices.