The social development strategy of the Shiites in Lebanon

This study examines what many scholars have neglected to investigate when addressing post Civil War issues in Lebanon. Most studies have addressed political issues surrounding activities of Shiite movements, such as Harakat Amal or Hizb Allah, while socioeconomic issues have been neglected.^ Imam Musa Sadr challenged the power of traditional Shiite leaders by creating official Shiites institutions and movements like Amal. The Iranian Revolution and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 sparked the creation of Hizb Allah which, not only struggled against its foes, but also provided social services to the Shiites. This development program has been central in creating political legitimacy for Hizb Allah, regardless of its military situation, which suggests that socioeconomic development can transform a militia into a legitimate actor on the Lebanese political scene. The survivability of Shiite parties is therefore tantamount to not only their military might, but also to their social involvement. ^

The social development strategy of the shiites in Lebanon

This study examines what many scholars have neglected to investigate when addressing post Civil War issues in Lebanon. Most studies have addressed political issues surrounding activities of Shiite movements, such as Harakat Amal or Hizb Allah, while socioeconomic issues have been neglected. Imam Musa Sadr challenged the power of traditional Shiite leaders by creating official Shiites institutions and movements like Amal. The Iranian Revolution and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 sparked the creation of Hizb Allah which, not only struggled against its foes, but also provided social services to the Shiites. This development program has been central in creating political legitimacy for Hizb Allah, regardless of its military situation, which suggests that socioeconomic development can transform a militia into a legitimate actor on the Lebanese political scene. The survivability of Shiite parties is therefore tantamount to not only their military might, but also to their social involvement.

Quality of student involvement and college contribution toward development of traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students

Nontraditional students differ from traditional students on characteristics such as age, employment status, marital status, and parental status. The quality of a student's experience is important as it relates to his or her transformation and is a reflection of the quality of the college. ^ Using theory of involvement as a framework, the purpose of this study was to test if there were differences between traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students in their ratings of quality of college involvement (academic, co-curricular, student interactions, and faculty interactions) and perceptions of college contribution toward development (intellectual, personal, social, and career). A two part survey was distributed to a random cluster sample of sophomore and higher level undergraduate classes equaling 400 undergraduate students. ^ Results of a 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA indicated that traditional students rated quality for co-curricular involvement and student involvement significantly higher than nontraditional students. Both traditional and nontraditional students had similar ratings of college contribution toward development. There were different patterns of correlations between involvement and development. Traditional students' ratings of academic and student involvement were more highly correlated with development than were the ratings of nontraditional students. However, nontraditional students' ratings of academic and faculty involvement were more highly correlated with development. When testing for differences in correlations between quality of involvement and college contribution toward development, the largest observed differences were quality of student involvement and college contribution toward personal and social development. Although not significantly different, traditional students had stronger correlations between those factors than did the nontraditional students. ^ This research demonstrates the importance of using social role when defining student type. It contributes to involvement theory by explaining how traditional and nontraditional students differ in their ratings of quality of involvement. Further, it identifies different patterns of correlations between ratings of quality of involvement and college contribution toward development for the two types of students. While traditional students may need a more rounded college experience that includes more social and co-curricular experiences, nontraditional students use the classroom as their stage for learning. ^

Quality of student involvement and college contribution toward development of traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students

Nontraditional students differ from traditional students on characteristics such as age, employment status, marital status, and parental status. The quality of a student's experience is important as it relates to his or her transformation and is a reflection of the quality of the college. Using theory of involvement as a framework, the purpose of this study was to test if there were differences between traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students in their ratings of quality of college involvement (academic, co-curricular, student interactions, and faculty interactions) and perceptions of college contribution toward development (intellectual, personal, social, and career). A two part survey was distributed to a random cluster sample of sophomore and higher level undergraduate classes equaling 400 undergraduate students. Results of a 2 X 4 repeated measures ANOVA indicated that traditional students rated quality for co-curricular involvement and student involvement significantly higher than nontraditional students. Both traditional and nontraditional students had similar ratings of college contribution toward development. There were different patterns of correlations between involvement and development. Traditional students' ratings of academic and student involvement were more highly correlated with development than were the ratings of nontraditional students. However, nontraditional students' ratings of academic and faculty involvement were more highly correlated with development. When testing for differences in correlations between quality of involvement and college contribution toward development, the largest observed differences were quality of student involvement and college contribution toward personal and social development. Although not significantly different, traditional students had stronger correlations between those factors than did the nontraditional students. This research demonstrates the importance of using social role when defining student type. It contributes to involvement theory by explaining how traditional and nontraditional students differ in their ratings of quality of involvement. Further, it identifies different patterns of correlations between ratings of quality of involvement and college contribution toward development for the two types of students. While traditional students may need a more rounded college experience that includes more social and co-curricular experiences, nontraditional students use the classroom as their stage for learning.