The everyday dilemmas that residence-hall student staff members (RAs) face have become more challenging for the traditional college-aged student to handle. The need for the decisions and actions of our RAs to have a more solid base in their own moral judgment is important. Helping RAs in their moral judgment development is a task or goal that institutions of higher learning can accomplish in many different ways. One approach includes offering these individuals a preparatory course that addresses various dilemmas and ways they might handle them in their staff positions. How successful is this approach? This study focused on the impact of Resident Assistant training on the development of moral judgment of college students as measured by the Defining Issues Test-2. The research method incorporated pretest-posttest nonequivalent comparison-group and posttest-only control group designs. The findings suggest that students who set out to be RAs are predisposed to a higher level of post conventional moral judgment than students who do not pursue RA training, and completing a RA selection course may influence the development of moral judgement.
What does moral judgment development look like in college students? What does moral judgment look like in college students, e.g., Resident Hall Assistants, who have important roles within the campus community? In 1967, [
Over the past 25 years, multiple studies have focused on moral judgment development in college students. Researchers [
Few studies have examined the moral judgment development of a specific college population, Resident Assistants (RAs). As residence-hall student staff members, RAs are a vital part of the university community. They are often the first to become aware of critical issues and ethical dilemmas that involve residents on their floors and in their buildings. The everyday dilemmas that RAs face [
RAs are encouraged to be good ethical role models to students on their floor. Even to apply, let alone to proceed through the selection process and become an RA, requires a special type of student. According to [
The mental health of college-age students is drastically different from what it was a few decades ago. Students are going to college counseling centers with more severe mental health issues [
Selecting and training appropriate students to assume the RA role is one way housing officers meet the multitude of challenges within the residence halls [
Almost thirty years ago, [
The purpose of the current study, taken from dissertation research [
In this study, the researcher examined whether participation by students in an RA staff training course had an impact on their moral judgment development when compared to the moral judgment development of students who did not participate in the course. The research questions addressed were as follows:
1) Did moral judgment development pretest scores for students participating in the RA selection course differ from the scores of students not enrolled in RA selection course as measured by the Defining Issues Test-2 (DIT-2)?
2) Upon their completion of the RA selection course, to what extent did students participating in the course differ from students not enrolled in the course in terms of their growth in moral judgment development skills, as measured by the DIT-2?
3) Did pretest moral judgment development scores of male students participating in the RA selection course differ from the pretest moral judgment development scores of female students enrolled in the RA selection course, as measured by the DIT-2?
4) Did interactions occur between students’ gender, their class standing, and their enrollment or not in the RA selection course, interactions that are reflected in the students’ moral judgment development scores in posttest for the experimental group and in their general scores for the control group?
The researcher collected data from the experimental group using the DIT-2 from all candidates who were proceeding through the RA selection course during the fall 2012 semester, and then again at the conclusion of the course in the spring 2013 semester. The Department of Housing and Dining Services at the university provided the list of students who were participating in the selection process. The control group consisted of a randomly selected sample from a list of 1000 freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior students, which was provided by the Executive Director of Research and Assessment within the Division of Student Affairs at the university. These students were not enrolled in the course and had never been RAs. These students completed the DIT-2 at the same time the experimental group completed the posttest.
The experimental group consisted of 43 students, nine male and 34 female, who were enrolled in the RA selection course and who had completed both the pretest and posttest via an email with a link to the Survey Monkey website. These students were all full-time students who were proceeding through the selection process to become RAs. They ranged in age from 17 years to 21 years, with an average age of 18.7 years. Of the 43 participants, 39 identified as Caucasian.
The control group consisted of 45 students, 15 male and 30 female, who responded to the email with the request to take the DIT-2 online using Survey Monkey during the middle of the spring 2013 semester. All of the control-group participants were full-time students who had never been RAs and were not enrolled in the RA selection course. Participant age for the control group ranged from 17 years to 44 years, with an average age of 21.1 years. Of the 45 participants, 38 identified as Caucasian.
In an effort to replicate the [
Variable | Control Group (n = 45) | Experimental Group (n = 43) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Freq. | % | Freq. | % | |
Gender | ||||
Male | 15 | 33.33 | 9 | 20.93 |
Female | 30 | 66.67 | 34 | 79.07 |
Race/Ethnicity | ||||
African American or Black | 2 | 4.44 | 2 | 4.65 |
Asian or Pacific Islander | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Hispanic | 2 | 4.44 | 2 | 4.65 |
American Indian/Other Native American | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Caucasian | 38 | 84.44 | 39 | 90.70 |
Other | 3 | 6.67 | 0 | 0.00 |
Age | ||||
17 - 19 | 31 | 68.89 | 36 | 83.72 |
20 - 24 | 6 | 13.33 | 7 | 16.28 |
25 - 30 | 5 | 11.11 | 0 | 0.00 |
35 - 40 | 2 | 4.44 | 0 | 0.00 |
45 and up | 1 | 2.22 | 0 | 0.00 |
Education Level | ||||
Freshman | 27 | 60.00 | 30 | 69.77 |
Sophomore | 8 | 17.78 | 8 | 18.60 |
Junior | 4 | 8.89 | 3 | 6.98 |
Senior | 6 | 13.33 | 2 | 4.65 |
participants to complete and yet has the same level of reliability as the DIT [
The DIT-2 comprises five scenarios that respondents must answer questions about to produce an N2 score. Each scenario contains three main questions. The first question of each scenario inquires about personal choices regarding what the person in the scenario should do, and whether the respondent favors the actions of the person in the scenario. This question contains a 3-point Likert scale with items ranging from one extreme on the left, such as “Should give Mrs. Bennett an increased dosage to make her die,” to the other extreme on the right, such as “Should not vie her an increased dosage.” The second question asks the respondent to use a 5-point Likert scale to rate a series of 12 issues in terms of importance, with items ranging from Great on the left to No on the right. The final question asks the participant to rate the issues from the second question in order of importance. This question uses a ranking system of Most Important to Fourth Most Important, and not all selections from the second question are available. This process continues for all five scenarios [
The researcher took several steps to address internal validity [
To determine whether there were any statistical significance outcomes for the research questions, the researcher performed independent t-tests, paired-sample t-tests, and univariate analyses of variances (ANOVAs). The results for each research question follow.
For the first research question,
The N2 score for the pretest had significant results. There was a significant difference between the moral judgment development pretest N2 scores for students who completed the one-semester RA selection course and the scores of students not enrolled in the RA selection course.
RQ | IV | DV | Statistic |
---|---|---|---|
RQ1 | RA selection course enrollment | Moral judgment development pretest score―experimental, moral reasoning score―control | Independent samples t-test |
RQ2 | RA selection course enrollment | Moral judgment development posttest scores―experimental compared to control | Independent samples t-test |
RQ3 | Gender, RA selection course enrollment | Moral judgment development pretest scores | Independent samples t-test |
RQ4 | Gender, class standing, RA selection course enrollment | Moral judgment development posttest scores―experimental; control group moral judgment development score | Univariate ANOVA |
Note. RQ = Research Question; IV = Independent Variable; DV = Dependent Variable.
Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N2 Pretest Score | 2.04 | 86 | 0.045 | 0.44 | ||
Enrolled | 40.48 | 13.30 | ||||
Not Enrolled | 34.38 | 14.71 |
The N2 score for the pretest and posttest had significant results. There was a significant difference in the amount of growth in moral judgment development as measured by the N2 scores for students who completed the one-semester RA selection course and the scores of students not enrolled in the RA selection course.
To assess whether gender, class standing, or a student’s enrollment in the RA selection course seemed to have an effect on an individual’s N2 score, the
Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N2 Pretest Score | 2.04 | 86 | 0.045 | 0.44 | ||
Enrolled | 40.48 | 13.30 | ||||
Not Enrolled | 34.38 | 14.71 | ||||
N2 Posttest Score | 3.07 | 86 | 0.033 | 0.65 | ||
Enrolled | 44.12 | 15.03 | ||||
Not Enrolled | 34.38 | 14.71 |
Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N2 Pretest Score | 0.41 | 41 | 0.68 | 0.15 | ||
Male | 42.12 | 14.34 | ||||
Female | 40.04 | 13.21 |
researcher conducted a univariate ANOVA.
Even though there was no significant interaction between gender and whether or not a student was proceeding through the RA selection course,
In RA Selection Course | Not in RA Selection Course | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | M | SD | n | M | SD | |
Freshman | ||||||
Male | 4 | 40.59 | 4.69 | 7 | 35.42 | 17.97 |
Female | 26 | 42.04 | 15.90 | 20 | 32.15 | 16.19 |
Sophomore | ||||||
Male | 2 | 51.48 | 5.52 | 3 | 28.48 | 6.43 |
Female | 6 | 51.33 | 15.61 | 5 | 32.96 | 15.93 |
Junior | ||||||
Male | 1 | 46.10 | ? | 3 | 42.69 | 11.47 |
Female | 2 | 60.04 | 13.86 | 1 | 34.14 | ? |
Senior | ||||||
Male | 2 | 32.22 | 16.70 | 2 | 41.20 | 15.75 |
Female | 0 | ? | ? | 4 | 40.34 | 10.54 |
Total | ||||||
Male | 9 | 41.76 | 9.81 | 15 | 36.26 | |
Female | 34 | 44.74 | 16.19 | 30 | 33.44 | 14.37 |
Variable and Source | df | MS | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 1 | 18.10 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
Education Level | 3 | 127.83 | 0.55 | 0.65 |
Intervention | 1 | 922.51 | 3.97 | 0.05 |
Gender * Education Level | 3 | 13.07 | 0.06 | 0.98 |
Gender * Intervention | 1 | 112.93 | 0.49 | 0.49 |
Education Level * Intervention | 3 | 215.81 | 0.93 | 0.43 |
Gender * Intervention * Education Level | 2 | 91.88 | 0.40 | 0.68 |
Error | 73 | 232.43 |
The results of the N2 scores relative to this research question had the same nonsignificant outcomes. For these study participants, there was no interaction between gender, class standing, RA selection-course enrollment, and moral judgment development scores as measured by the DIT-2.
As noted, the purpose of this study was to replicate a previous study [
students who had enrolled and completed a one semester RA training class when compared to that development of a similar group of students who did not participate in the RA training class. Although much research has focused on the general college student’s moral judgment development [
The results of the study indicate two statistically significant outcomes. Research Questions 1 and 2 both had significant outcomes. First, there was a significant difference between the moral judgment development pretest N2 scores of students enrolled in the RA selection course for one semester and the scores of students not enrolled in the RA selection course. Second, there was a significant difference between the moral judgment development pretest and posttest scores of those students enrolled in the RA selection course for one semester and the scores of the students not enrolled in the RA selection course. These findings suggest that students enrolled in the RA selection course have a predisposition for a higher level of moral judgment than students not enrolled in the course. It also suggests that the RA course has a positive impact on the moral judgment development for the students who complete it compared to those who are not enrolled in it. For Research Question 1, no specific research has been done on RAs in relation to their normative moral judgment development scores. The findings for Research Question 3 conflict with the previous study’s [
This research had two limitations. First, the training as established by the course syllabus was specific to the research site. Currently, there are no general training guidelines and manuals for RA training to which all institutions subscribe. Second, the focus of this study was on the moral judgment development of students within the RA selection course at one institution. One aspect that makes higher education so special is the diversity in campuses across the country.
Leaders within higher education have been concerned with the moral development of students since colonial times [
This study adds to the limited body of knowledge of RA training courses and provides some insight into how a training course can impact an individual’s moral judgment development. The results indicate a significant difference in the moral judgment development of students who were enrolled in and completed an RA training course when compared to those students who were not enrolled in an RA training course. This is an interesting finding and suggests that, at minimum, students who enroll in and complete the RA training may demonstrate a higher level of post conventional moral thinking.
There are multiple possibilities for future research. A similar study could be completed at other colleges and universities of varying size and Carnegie Classification. Researchers also might conduct a similar study utilizing a mixed-method approach to gain a better understanding of exactly how individuals’ moral judgment development increases. Listening to their stories and explanations about how their training prepared them to be ethical professionals could be of interest, add valuable insights into RA training as well as suggest how to foster ethical reasoning and behavior in RAs. Another study could examine the impact of a universal syllabus for RA training that includes more than a 3-hour presentation and discussion of professional ethical issues as well as the importance of moral judgment to fulfilling the ethical obligations of the role. For instance, a recent study by researchers [
Jacques, K.L. and Anderson, S.K. (2017) Impact of a Residence Hall Staff Training Class on the Moral Judgment Development of College Students. Open Access Library Journal, 4: e4232. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104232