Exploring Student Entitlement at an Ontario College by Mark Hanna A

Exploring Student Entitlement at an Ontario College

Mark Hanna

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

Exploring Student Entitlement at an Ontario College

Doctor of Philosophy, 2016

Mark Hanna Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the concept of student entitlement specifically within the context of an Ontario College, focusing on conceptualizing student entitlement from the faculty perspective, and then determining the extent to which students report entitled attitudes.

The study followed a mixed-methods methodology. Faculty were invited to participate in a concept mapping exercise and the resulting concept map proposed a four-factor model for student entitlement; including, “Tuition Equals Outcomes”; “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort”; “I am a customer, serve me”; and, “Problems are due to others, not me”. A

Student Entitlement questionnaire was assembled using highly rated items from each factor.

From the results of the questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory principal components analysis were conducted, and the analyses suggested that the model for student entitlement at the Ontario college would be best be described by a three-factor model, with the “Knowledge is a right” factor identified by faculty being removed and the items under that factor fitting well within the three remaining factors.

Based on the three-factor model, raw and standardized student entitlement scores were

assembled. The distribution of entitlement was normal, with approximately 15% of respondents

in the High or Very High categories. When controlling for age, over 18% of respondents in the

Traditional age category (18-24) were in the High or Very High categories.

The impact of entitlement includes harm to the student’s learning, which could ultimately

impact society as a whole, particularly in fields where students are working with vulnerable populations, such as in health care or social services. Student entitlement also impacts faculty in terms of lower job satisfaction and a pressure to succumb to students’ demands, particularly when faculty feel a lack of support from the administration.

This study made suggestions for practice; including, changing the way we market to students; focusing on a transition/orientation program that would specifically address the transition from customer to student; using students’ customer orientation strategically by improving services for students; and, a review of student feedback questionnaires and the process

surrounding their administration.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to show recognition for the many individuals who contributed to

the realization of this doctoral thesis. The members of my thesis committee provided great support and direction, and my supervisor, Dr. Peter Dietsche, provided tireless support for me in the development of my research proposal and the writing of the thesis. Peter, your words of encouragement gave me the fuel to keep going.

The staff and students at the subject college were key to the success of this project, as both were required as research participants. The level of engagement with my project was truly humbling and I am eager to use what we have learned to good use. Special recognition must be given to Alvina Cassiani, Dean of The Business School at Humber College, for her kind support throughout my doctoral studies.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife, Nancy, and my children, Abigail,

Benjamin and Charles. Thanks for giving me the time and support I needed to get this done.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Abstract ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background and Statement of the Problem Situation ...... 2 Rationale: Why is this important? ...... 3 Theoretical Framework ...... 6 Summary of Chapter One ...... 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 8 How is entitlement defined? ...... 8 Are Entitlement and Deservingness synonymous? ...... 10 Relationship between Entitlement and Narcissism ...... 15 Profile of an entitled student ...... 22 Entitlement: Pervasive or Context-Specific? ...... 23 Social construction of Entitlement ...... 28 Neoliberal Government Policy ...... 28 Helicopter Parenting ...... 31 “Student-Centred” Learning ...... 32 Methodological influences from the literature and Rationale for New Measure ...... 34 Faculty and Student Perspectives Informing Measurement Creation ...... 34 Construct Validity...... 36 Rationale for creation of new measure; Context ...... 39 Summary of Chapter Two ...... 41 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 42 Participants ...... 43 Rationale for Research Design ...... 43 Study Procedure ...... 45 Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement? ...... 45 v

Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization map to Kopp et al’s (2011) five facets of the theoretical basis academic entitlement? ...... 48 Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty? ...... 49 Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college? ... 54 Research Question 5 – What is the impact of student entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective? ...... 54 Summary of Chapter Three ...... 56 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...... 57 Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement? ...... 57 Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s (2011), five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement? ...... 60 Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty? ...... 62 Initial Assembly of Items for Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire ...... 63 Completion of Questionnaire; Adding items from Chowning and Campbell (2009) ...... 65 Pilot Testing the SE questionnaire with Student Focus Group ...... 67 Full Administration of Student Entitlement survey ...... 73 Response rates ...... 76 Chowning and Campbell (2009) analysis ...... 76 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of survey data based on 4-factor model of Student entitlement ...... 78 Exploratory factor analysis of survey data based on 1-factor model of Student entitlement 82 Principal Components Analysis to determine appropriate number of factors ...... 85 Confirmatory factor analysis of survey data based on 3-factor model of Student entitlement ...... 89 3-factor Model compared to 4-factor model and Kopp et al.’s five facets ...... 92 Internal reliability of factors within 3-factor Student Entitlement (SE) model ...... 93 Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college? 95 Calculation of factor scores ...... 95 Categories to determine “prevalence” ...... 97 Student characteristics and student entitlement ...... 100 vi

Research Question 5 – What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective? ...... 102 Impact on students ...... 103 Impact on faculty ...... 104 Impact on society as a whole ...... 105 What College might be doing to foster entitlement ...... 106 Summary of Chapter Four ...... 107 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 108 Summary of Results ...... 108 Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement? ...... 110 The Problem with the Student as Customer ...... 113 Strategically using the Customer model ...... 115 Fostering student entitlement and how to reverse the trend while also maintaining market share ...... 117 Externalized Responsibility ...... 120 Informing the Student Customer Perspective ...... 121 Self-Esteem Movement ...... 122 Helicopter Parenting ...... 123 High school experiences ...... 124 Is Entitlement Narcissism? Deservingness? ...... 126 Narcissism ...... 127 Deservingness ...... 128 Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s (2011), five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement? ...... 130 Kopp et al. – Breadth of the construct or overlap? ...... 130 Control over class policies – Power element ...... 131 Practical and theoretical basis for the construct ...... 131 Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty? ...... 132 The 3-factor model ...... 132 Other Models ...... 133 vii

Chowning and Campbell (2009)...... 133 Achachoso (2002) ...... 134 Greenberger et al. (2008) ...... 135 Singleton-Jackson et al. (2011) ...... 136 Wasielski et al. (2014) ...... 137 Student Perspectives on Student Entitlement ...... 139 Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college? ...... 140 The Epidemic has not been proven ...... 140 Research Question 5 – What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective? ...... 142 Suggestions for Practice ...... 144 Use the Customer Factor to our advantage ...... 144 Marketing...... 145 Transitioning from customers to students ...... 145 Student Evaluations and Complaints ...... 146 Limitations of the Research ...... 147 Suggestions for future research ...... 149 Conclusion ...... 150 References ...... 152

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Comparison of concept mapping themes to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets of academic entitlement ...... 61 Table 2 - Questionnaire items with corresponding statements and themes from faculty concept mapping exercise...... 64 Table 3 - Survey items from Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) Academic Entitlement (AE) scale, organized by subscale...... 66 Table 4 - Pilot survey question related to clarity and appropriateness of survey items ...... 68 Table 5 - Total Variance output from Principal Components Analysis of Chowning and Campbell (2009) Academic Entitlement (AE) scale ...... 78

viii

Table 6 - Model Fit Stats for 4-factor model CFA, with ideal ranges as provided by Byrne (2010) ...... 80 Table 7- Assessment of Normality for 4-factor model CFA ...... 81 Table 8 - Model Fit Stats for 1-factor model EFA ...... 83 Table 9 - Assessment of Normality for 1-factor model EFA ...... 84 Table 10 - Total Variance output from Principal Components Analysis ...... 86 Table 11 - Factor Loadings for 3-factor model ...... 87 While the principal components analysis produced a three-factor solution, it is clear that the construct of Student Entitlement is largely defined by one, “I am a customer, serve me” since this one factor accounts for the majority of the variance explained. Table 12 - Student Entitlement (SE) scale items after principal components analysis ...... 88 Table 13 - Model Fit Stats for 3-factor model CFA ...... 89 Table 14- Model Fit Statistics Comparison for 4-Factor, 1-Factor and 3-Factor models of Student entitlement...... 91 Table 15 - Assessment of Normality for 3-factor model CFA ...... 91 Table 16 - Comparison between 4-factor model, 3 factor model and Kopp et al. (2011) Five Facets of Student entitlement ...... 93 Table 17 - Cronbach’s Alpha calculations for 3-factor model, including number of items and percentage of variance explained by each factor ...... 93 Table 18 - Factor score calculation ...... 95 Table 19 - Descriptive statistics for raw factor scores, n=889 ...... 95 Table 20 - Descriptive statistics for standardized (Z) factor scores, n=889 ...... 96 Table 21 - Descriptive statistics for standardized entitlement (Z-Entitlement) scores, n=889 ..... 96 Table 22 - Categories for student entitlement ranging from Very Low to Very High ...... 97 Table 23 - Distribution of Student Entitlement categories using Standardized (Z) Scores ...... 98 Table 24 - Distribution of Student Entitlement Categories Using Raw Scores ...... 98 Table 25 - Z-Entitlement Score Means for Domestic/International status and 1-Way ANOVA results ...... 100 Table 26 - Z-Entitlement Score Means for Age (Traditional versus Non-Traditional) and 1-Way ANOVA results ...... 100 Table 27 - Distribution of Student Entitlement Categories For Traditional Age Group (18-24) 101

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Sorting instructions from CS software ...... 47 Figure 2 - Table top screen shot to show how statements could be sorted...... 47 Figure 3 - Graphic of 5 factor model initially created from concept mapping exercise with Ontario College faculty ...... 59 Figure 4 - Graphic of 4 factor model after Lack of Professionalism category removed ...... 60 ix

Figure 5- Survey Responses by Gender ...... 74 Figure 6 - Survey Responses by age group ...... 74 Figure 7 - Survey responses by Educational Experience ...... 74 Figure 8 - International student status of respondents ...... 75 Figure 9 - Respondents’ Program Type ...... 75 Figure 10 - Respondent’s Semester of Study ...... 75 Figure 11 - Respondent’s Academic School...... 76 Figure 12 - CFA 4-Factor Model ...... 80 Figure 13 - EFA 1 Factor Model...... 83 Figure 14 - CFA 3-factor model ...... 90 Figure 15 - Bar Chart of Z Entitlement Score Distribution ...... 99 Figure 16- Bar Chart of Raw Entitlement Score Distribution ...... 99

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Copy of Student entitlement survey from fluidsurvey.com ...... 163 Appendix B - Raw Brainstorming Statements from Faculty Concept Mapping ...... 176 Appendix C - Revised Brainstorming statements ...... 180 Appendix D - Rough Clusters and Associated Statements From Faculty Concept Mapping .... 183 Appendix E - Statement themes, ratings and those chosen as survey items ...... 189 Appendix F - Pilot Survey ...... 196 Appendix G - Survey Responses ...... 218 Appendix H - Item composition of three factors from Chowning and Campbell PCA ...... 237 Appendix I - Standard Residual Covariances for 4-factor model using CFA ...... 238 Appendix J - Standard Residual Covariances for 1-factor model using EFA ...... 238 Appendix K - Standard Residual Covariances for 3-factor model using CFA ...... 240

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

As a leader in the Ontario College system for the last ten years, it has been my impression that some students are coming to College with a sense of entitlement, where their expectations seem to be disconnected to the traditional expectations in a higher education context. While this may not apply to all students, I have a sense that some students are expecting more for doing less, or expecting a level of service that goes far beyond what I expected as a student in post- secondary education. I have been struck by the extent to which some students’ expectations appear unrealistic, relative to their effort and/or ability. Furthermore, my suspicion that something is amiss has been, time and time again, confirmed anecdotally by faculty members who demonstrate immediate recognition when I use the word entitled or entitlement to describe students in casual conversation. But while we seem to know it when we see it, do we know of what the concept is truly comprised? And is this a significant problem that is reflected in a large number of students or only a small subset? The purpose of this study is to examine faculty perceptions of student entitlement with the end of mapping the concept and creating a student entitlement measure; examine the extent to which the faculty’s conceptualization is consistent with student entitlement as has been defined/constructed in the literature; examine students’ perceptions of student entitlement by piloting the newly created student entitlement measure with them and having them participate in a discussion about student entitlement; examine faculty perceptions of the impact of entitlement behaviours; and examine the extent to which students at a large Ontario college report entitled tendencies in beliefs or actions.

Background and Statement of the Problem Situation

In striving to offer quality education to Ontario College students, motivated not only by

professional responsibility but also by the need to maintain market share in the competitive

higher education sector, an important factor to consider is the nature of the students in our

classrooms. Student retention and student engagement is, in part, a function of the attitudes of

our students (Pascarella & Teranzini, 2005). As a result, the sense that students may be entering college with an entitled attitude is of concern. However, it is also important to remember that entitlement is by its very nature referential, in terms of one individual or group commenting on the behaviour of another individual or group. The implication then, when you say someone is acting entitled, is that they are not entitled to X even when their expectation is that they are.

What is the nature of this discrepancy? Once we understand this, we might have a chance to identify the sources of the discrepancy and then effect change.

Much has been written and spoken about students increased sense of entitlement (e.g., see

Twenge, 2006; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008a; Twenge, Konrath,

Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008b; and Twenge, 2009), and entitlement has become part of

the educational discourse. Colleagues’ and friends’ eyes light up when I mention that I am

looking at the issue of student entitlement. Consistent examples that I have encountered, both

personally and anecdotally from colleagues, include students expecting responses to email or

telephone communications within an unreasonably short timeframe, expecting faculty to accept a

myriad of excuses for missing tests or assignments, and expecting faculty to create makeup

assignments or tests to allow an otherwise failing student to pass a course. To truly understand

student entitlement, it is necessary to attempt to encapsulate the attitudes that a student can

exhibit that lead us to describe that student as entitled. By what norm do we expect students to abide? While this issue has been explored in the literature, as will be reviewed in Chapter Two, it has not been done so significantly within the Canadian context, and more specifically within the

Ontario College system. Using a mixed methods approach, it is my hope that I will be making a contribution to the body of literature that conceptualizes student entitlement, having used concept mapping methodology to identify the underlying factors of student entitlement. The resulting construct was analyzed using factor analysis to ensure that the model proposed is of good fit. The student perspective was also sought by having a student focus group both pilot the new student entitlement survey but also provide their perspectives on the issue of student entitlement and students’ expectations regarding postsecondary education.

Rationale: Why is this important?

The issue of entitlement in the academic context is important because it demonstrates a departure from the strong work ethic needed to succeed in most careers. Greenberger, Lessard,

Chen and Farrugia (2008) note that student entitlement is associated with: a poor work ethic; a willingness to exploit others for personal gain; an unhelpful attitude towards others; and no increase in higher grades (p. 1201). Ideally, we want students to embrace the ideals of hard work, attention to detail, a desire to serve, and willingness to work as part of a team. Left unchecked, student entitlement could have real consequences for society as excellence gives way to mediocrity. If educational institutions are vehicles for moving students into trades and professions, we must approach the problem of student entitlement seriously and take measures to address and counteract such a destructive trend. If we do not do so, how can we expect our students, who do not possess the qualities that are required of practising professionals (such as

perseverance, self-sufficiency and personal awareness of others), to suddenly adopt these

qualities when they enter the workforce (Kelly, 2010, p. 47)?

This issue is also important because it can affect faculty morale. Professors want to teach

students who are eager to learn and who respect what they are trying to do in terms of passing on

information and acting as a guide as the students learn new and stimulating information. While this ideal is very “pie in the sky”, at least you want to have students who aren’t challenging you

at every turn, questioning the merits of the work you are asking them to do and challenging every

mark that you give them on tests and assignments. While this is the case, it is also important to

mention that by no means are faculty perfect and some challenges from students are legitimate.

Faculty who are too rigid and unwilling to change their teaching style to meet different student

needs, or who are unwilling to consider the possibility that they made a mistake when grading a

student’s test or assignment, get what they deserve. That being said, I have experienced the

downside of reflecting an open, flexible outlook to students. In the interests of fostering a sense

of due process and justice, I would routinely tell my students that I am open to debating a mark

that I have given them and that if they make a convincing argument, I would happily change their grade. I did this because I genuinely believe that I am not infallible, and because I believe it

builds a rapport with the students. My hope was that they would trust and respect me, and enter into a dialogue about their marks with this in mind. While some did, others took it as a cue to try and squeeze some extra marks from me simply by wearing me down. After experiencing this, I understood a bit more why some faculty choose a more authoritarian approach to pedagogy. To demonstrate that my experiences are not unique, part of my research methodology included

having faculty participants describe experiences where students displayed a sense of entitlement, and how this affected the learning of the subject student, as well as that of others.

At the same time, it is important to note first that, though some have suggested that entitlement is on the rise, as discussed above, perhaps what is actually occurring is that faculty are feeling the effects of a vocal and vexing minority. While the behaviour of this minority might still be time consuming and hard to manage, this is far different from buying into the epidemic that has been put forth by other authors (Twenge, 2006). Furthermore, perhaps not all entitlement is pathological or harmful or about a deficiency in our students, as it may also more simply be about a discrepancy of expectation between students and faculty or the overall academic institution. So, one obvious question is where does this discrepancy come from? Only when we begin to understand the source of the discrepancy can we then develop strategies to address them, including looking at external forces that affect students’ expectations before they join the institution, but also in terms of identifying ways in which the faculty or institution are fostering inappropriate entitlement behaviours/attitudes. This will allow for a more strategic approach to address those issues rather than just trying to address entitlement as a single issue.

At the same time, it will be important to balance the view that students’ expectations are unrealistic or unwarranted, with a critical view of faculty and post-secondary institutions who might be clinging to the status quo.

The following research questions were answered by the study:

1. How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student

entitlement?

2. How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s

(2011) five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement?

3. Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement

derived from faculty?

4. What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

5. What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

Theoretical Framework

The framework of this study is based on a mixture of both a social constructivist and postpositivist worldview (Cresswell, 2009, p. 7-8) in that I am attempting to understand entitlement within the context of the social dynamics found within the academic context, while also using this understanding to facilitate creation of a measure of entitlement to be used to answer questions on the breadth of the concept and on prevalence. In Chapter Two below, I discuss some of the social constructs that might inform the presence of student entitlement, to whatever degree it is in fact present. Inspired by Lerner’s (1987) theory that entitlement is based on social structure and the specific meanings individuals attach to situations (p.110), the goal of my research is to rely on participants’ views of the issue being studied (Cresswell, 2009, p. 8).

Also, construct validity can be achieved by using Benson’s (1998) strong program of construct validity as a framework, which has three stages: a substantive stage, a structural stage and an external stage (Kopp et al., 2011, p.107). For this reason, the research began with a concept mapping approach to define student entitlement using a sample of faculty members. The conceptualization developed by faculty was used as the basis for creating a new entitlement instrument. This instrument was piloted with a focus group that was asked to speak to the clarity

and wording of the items, while also providing their own perspectives and reactions to the items

within the instrument. The resulting instrument was then structurally analyzed using factor

analysis and then assessed against the theoretical basis for student entitlement as identified by

Kopp et al. (2011), which summarizes the conceptual breadth of the concept as identified in the literature. It is hoped that by obtaining multiple viewpoints and using a rigorous design, this study will contribute to the body of literature on student entitlement and also some understanding of the issue specifically in the Ontario College context. As will be discussed in Chapter Two, the term academic entitlement is used to refer to a sense of entitlement that is specific to the academic context. This is distinguished from a general sense of entitlement, typically associated with being part of narcissism, which is expressed across various contexts (Kopp et al., p.106). In the present study, I will refer to the term student entitlement, and it is meant to represent the same context-specific version of entitlement, but specifically from the Ontario College context. It is hoped the use of this term will ease the confusion between the model for entitlement in the academic context described in the present study versus models from previous studies.

Summary of Chapter One

This chapter provided an introduction to the problem situation, including the background of the problem, and the rationale for the research, in terms of why the problem is important in the context of higher education. As well, the specific research questions that will form the basis for the research have been identified. Chapter Two will provide a review of the relevant literature on entitlement and entitlement in the academic context more specifically.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW In Chapter One, the background of the problem situation was identified, as was the purpose of the study. In Chapter Two, the relevant literature relating to entitlement, and entitlement in the academic context more specifically, will be reviewed. In identifying themes and debates on the issue, I will attempt to map the current state of knowledge on the issue, and justify my research methodology and focus.

How is entitlement defined?

Part of the challenge of discussing or measuring entitlement is that it is a concept that is hard to define, at least comprehensively. In reviewing the literature, definitions begin to emerge that describe the kinds of things that educators are encountering with entitled students.

Entitlement has been defined as believing that knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’ (Dubovsky, 1986, p. 1672); as normative expectations of deservingness of outcomes based on the performance of requisite actions (Lerner, 1987, p. 110); believing that you always deserve the best outcome and becoming angered when this doesn’t happen (Kelln, 1997, p. 6); exaggerated deservingness; a judgment of what is owed based on perceived social norms (Feather, 2003, p. 368); having a “stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (Campbell, Bonacci,

Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004, p. 31); believing that one’s desires must be met and that other people shouldindulge and not frustrate these desires (Harrington, 2005, p. 378); narcissism

(Twenge, 2006); insistence on getting the respect that is due the person and never being satisfied until the person gets what they deserve (Schings, 2009, p. 1); and, in terms of student entitlement

specifically, having “the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without taking responsibility for achieving that success” (Chowning & Campbell, 2009, p. 982); and “the expectation that one should receive certain positive academic outcomes (e.g., high grades) in academic settings, often independent of performance” (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 106). It will be important to note whether faculty and student perceptions of student entitlement, measured in this study, follow similar themes of attitudes and behaviours.

A distinction has been made (Lessard, Greenberger, Chen & Farrugia, 2011) between the term exploitive entitlement, characterized by the exploitation of others, and non-exploitive entitlement, characterized by the belief that one deserves positive outcomes in life, without the willingness to exploit others to achieve those ends (p. 523). Exploitive entitlement is further associated with low levels of self-esteem and related to manipulativeness, irresponsibility callousness, neuroticism, and anxiety. Exploitive entitlement is also negatively associated with work orientation, which is the ability to take pleasure in work and persist at difficult tasks (p.

523). What is most striking about this observation is the fact that either form of entitlement would be of concern in the academic context. A belief that one deserves positive outcomes in life, even without the willingness to exploit others can still be problematic if the student expects these positive outcomes regardless of actual performance. There is no consolation in the student who had unrealistic expectations but stopped short of exploiting others to see those expectations realized. Perhaps the silver lining is that the student who exhibits non-exploitive entitlement will have a better work orientation, which one would hope would translate to working harder to get those expected positive outcomes.

Also, relevant to the present study, Kopp et al (2011) make a distinction between two kinds of entitlement. The first, generalized entitlement, “refers to unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations” (p. 106).

This definition is taken from the definition of entitlement as used in the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory, which will be discussed below. Kopp et al. go on to discuss the negative societal effects of a generalized sense of entitlement, noting that entitlement has been “found to correlate positively with hostility, dominance, difficulty in relationships, aggression, intention to harm, greed, and taking items from others” (p. 106). The second model of entitlement, academic entitlement is, according to Kopp et al. (2011), the “expectation that one should receive certain positive academic outcomes (e.g. high grades) in academic settings, often independent of performance” (p. 106). While there are authors who believe that entitlement is “a chronic or stable disposition” (Campbell et al., 2004. p. 35). Kopp et al. (2011) and Chowning and

Campbell (2009) support the notion that entitlement beliefs may differ across specific contexts, with Chowning and Campbell stating that “students who behave in an entitled fashion in their academic coursework may not display this behaviour with their peers, family, or health professionals, and they may not internalize more general entitlement statements as applying to them” (p. 983). It is this version of entitlement, referred to as student entitlement to avoid confusion, on which the present study focuses.

Are Entitlement and Deservingness synonymous?

Part of the definitional ambiguity within the literature revolves around whether there is a distinction between entitlement and deservingness. As a starting point, Lerner (1987) describes entitlement as being the “essential psychological ingredient of an entire family of human events

associated with social justice” (p. 107-8). Implicit in this concept is the idea that someone deserves or is entitled to something based on who they are or what they have done. Similarly,

Kelln (1997) talks about two routes to excessive entitlement, being compensatory, where a person who perceives they are being deprived expects a third party to make up for this deprivation; or privileged, where entitlement is based on perceived superiority (p. 10). Both definitions relate to the notion that entitlement is about being owed something or something being deserved. Also, the reaction of being entitled is described as being experienced on an emotional level coupled with a belief that there is an imperative for the deserved outcome to be satisfied (Lerner, 1987, p. 108). Kelln’s (1997) research involved the creation of a self-report measure of exaggerated deservingness, with exaggerated deservingness defined as representing a self-serving attitude that one is always entitled to the most advantageous outcomes (p. iii). As can be seen, the terms entitlement and deservingness are used interchangeably in similar contexts and in relation to similar behaviours or attitudes. As a result, it is hard to neatly separate entitlement from deservingness (Achachoso, 2002, p. 5).

On the other end of the spectrum are those authors who believe that entitlement and deservingness are related, yet separate concepts. Two notable examples are Steil (1997) and

Feather (2003 & 2008). Steil noted that an important theoretical distinction between entitlement and deservingness is that deservingness is more related to “earning” a particular outcome while entitlement is more related to feeling meritorious of an outcome simply because of personal attributes (p. 108). Feather also advocates for a separation of the two concepts, but the distinctions made do not consistently mesh with those made by Steil. Similar to Steil, Feather relates deservingness to outcomes that are earned and achieved. However, Feather also includes

within the deservingness concept the notion that deservingness can be inferred from a person’s qualities (p. 368). This is markedly similar to the entitlement definition set out by Steil. For the most part, however, Feather focuses deservingness on the connection between actions and outcomes. In other words, good actions deserve good outcomes, and bad actions deserve bad outcomes. Entitlement, according to Feather, refers to judgments that relate to agreed-upon bodies of law, norms or informal rules (p. 368).

Feather (2008) revisits this issue when looking at promotion decisions made within the context of an affirmative action policy. In this context, he again relates deservingness to the applicant’s actions (their work) and entitlement to the affirmative action policy (p. 1232). When this is applied to the academic context, it is not clear how these two categories neatly apply. If deservingness relates to the student’s actions (their work), then entitlement would be the academic regulations that require faculty to fairly assign grades for the work and the regulations that provide the student with a recourse if they feel that they have been treated unfairly. Again, these categories ignore the incongruence between the student’s perception of what they deserve and that of the faculty member, or institution at large. The issues that we have with students don’t generally involve the entitlement side of the house, as defined by Feather, but with their perception of what actions deserve which outcomes (i.e. deservingness). In other words, in the case of a student believing they deserve a higher grade, the problem is not that they have worked hard, deserving a positive outcome, but we are denying them based on an improper interpretation of academic policy. The problem is that the work that has been done does not equate to achieving the grades that the student believes they deserve, according to the faculty member. It would seem reasonable to conclude then, that Feather’s distinctions don’t work within the

academic context, weakening the distinction between entitlement and deservingness. An interesting aspect of Feather’s (2008) research relates to the feeling of resentment towards a decision, when the applicant for a promotion believed they were entitled to/deserving of a positive outcome. The mediating factor is the perceived legitimacy of the authority. If the authority has complied with the student’s expectations of entitlement and/or deservingness then it is more likely that the negative decision will be accepted. So, if a student takes a complaint they have directly to the Vice-President or President prior to speaking to the Associate Dean or

Dean of the School, this may be associated with their feeling entitled to have their concerns heard from the very top of the institution, but it may also reflect their perception of the legitimacy of the decisions made by these “lower” administrators. So, overall, Feather’s attempt to make distinctions between deservingness and entitlement seems to miss the mark when we look at the academic context.

While the distinction between entitlement and deservingness raised may have a significance in various contexts “in relation to cognitive, affective and behavioural variables”

(Feather, 2003, p. 369), it is important to also consider the everyday understanding of these terms, relative to how faculty and students might perceive it. In other words, it may be true that there are separate forces driving people to believe they ought to receive something, with one being based on their own actions and another being based upon social norms or legal rights. But do the terms deservingness and entitlement naturally connect us to these different forces, or are we attempting to force these definitions to substantiate that they are two distinct concepts? It can be difficult to explain the meaning of entitlement without using the word deserving, which might suggest that the terms are either the same thing or related in a manner that doesn’t allow for

disentangling them into two distinct ideas. This is supported by the extent to which many authors make no distinction or seem to use the terms interchangeably. For example, Campbell et al.

(2004) define their construct of psychological entitlement as a “stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (p. 31). It is true that they do make a slight distinction between deservingness and entitlement along the same lines as Steil (1997) and

Feather (2003), with deservingness being related to actions and entitlement being related to social contracts. However, they also admit that whether one uses the word deservingness or entitlement, the same meaning is preserved. Also, their results confirmed that both terms load similarly onto a single factor (p. 31).

Perhaps what we should take from the debate on whether deservingness or entitlement are the same or distinct are the various elements of each that might inform what is happening in the academic context. Within the deservingness concept, Feather’s (2003) definition highlights the idea that outcomes are based on actions. In the academic context, an obvious example of this is the student who believes that their effort or time spent studying makes them deserving of a particular grade. However, can this be separated from a student’s perception of a rule or social norm that states that x amount of work equals deserving grade x? Where does the student get this idea other than from social norms, perceived or actual? This is consistent with Lerner’s (1987) suggestion that we unconsciously determine entitlement to things when we construct our world, which is based on the interaction between our mind and physical and social reality (p. 113). So while it is true that the student’s actions drove the idea that they were deserving of an outcome, it is unclear how this belief can exist without some reference to a social norm of entitlement. So, perhaps what we can say is that deservingness and entitlement, as defined above, are sides of the

same coin, which must exist in order for the presence of actions or beliefs reflecting entitlement. Student entitlement could be defined then, encompassing both entitlement and deservingness, as students believing that their actions have made them deserving of something, based on their perception of social norms of entitlement.

Relationship between Entitlement and Narcissism

In reviewing the literature, it is clear that there is also some conceptual overlap between entitlement and narcissism. One obvious example relates to the definition of narcissism within the discipline of psychology. In psychological research, the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a disorder defined within the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter “DSM”) (American Psychological Association, 1984) is most commonly measured using the Narcissistic 40 item forced choice Narcissistic Personality

Inventory (“NPI”) (Campbell, et al., 2004, p. 30). The NPI was developed based on the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the third edition of the DSM (Emmons, 1987, p. 12). The

NPI contains an entitlement subscale, defining entitlement as “unreasonable expectations of especially favorable [sic] treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations”

(American Psychological Association, 1984). Included within the entitlement sub-scale are items such as “If I ruled the world it would be a better place” versus “The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me”; “I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve” versus “I will take my satisfactions as they come”; and “I have a strong will to power” versus “Power for its own sake doesn’t interest me” (Campbell et al., 2004, p. 30). While the DSM definition of entitlement bears a resemblance to the characteristics displayed by students whom I or my colleagues had described as being entitled, the forced choice questions from the NPI display a

power dimension, which wasn’t consistently evident in my experiences. In most cases, I didn’t get the impression that students were fighting for what they wanted on the basis of exerting power. Instead, they were fighting on the basis that they believed they deserved the requested outcome. Campbell et al. (2004) confirm this disparity by arguing that the power aspects of the

NPI do not sound like entitlement and, in terms of a methodological perspective, the validity of the NPI has only been tested as a measure of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not entitlement as a separate measure (Campbell et al., 2004, p. 30), and the subscales have no internal consistency

(Pincus, 2009, p. 366). Despite this fact, much of the research that has been done on entitlement measures narcissism as well, using the NPI, or at least the entitlement subscale of the NPI, to validate newly developed measures of entitlement. For example, Campbell et al. (2004) developed a Psychological Entitlement Scale (“PES”), and validated it using the NPI. While they were able to claim that the PES was both a single factor and internally consistent, this relied on correlations with the NPI and other similar measures (Self Esteem scale, for example) providing convergent validity (p. 32). Furthermore, in one of Campbell et al’s studies, they use the fact that narcissism is linked to aggression following criticism, to predict that psychological entitlement would be linked to aggression as well, based on the correlation between psychological entitlement scores and narcissism scores. Eventually however, Campbell et al. concluded that the two measures were best considered to be a reflection of two related, but separate concepts.

Aside from using the NPI as a validation measure, the literature on entitlement has often included some reference to narcissism both in terms of it being related or because it is believed not to be. So, while Achachoso (2002) begins her definition of entitlement by connecting it to narcissism, indicating that Freud included entitlement within his concept of narcissism (p. 3),

Campbell et al. (2004), in justifying their desire to develop a separate measure for psychological entitlement, criticized the fact that entitlement has been incorporated as part of investigations into narcissism, self-esteem and other interpersonal and interdependence-based variables (p. 12).

In some cases, narcissism and entitlement have been used interchangeably, particularly within an interesting debate found in the literature with one side advocating for the notion that entitlement/narcissism has increased over time (see Twenge, 2006; Twenge, Konrath, Foster,

Campbell & Bushman, 2008a; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008b; and

Twenge, 2009) and the other side arguing that these claims are overblown (see Trzesniewski,

Donnellan & Robins, 2008a; Trzesniewski, Donnellan & Robins, 2008b; and Donnellan,

Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2009). Twenge, whose books in particular have received significant media attention, uses the term entitled and narcissistic interchangeably, while also using entitlement as a characteristic of narcissism (Twenge et al., 2008a, p. 875). Twenge et al.

(2008a), in taking the position that narcissism has increased over time, use as evidence the fact that in 1950, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (a commonly used personality test) found that 12% of teenage respondents agreed with the statement “I am an important person". By the late 1980s, this number had increased to 80% (p. 878). Furthermore, Twenge et al’s (2008a) main source of inquiry was looking at mean NPI scores over the period of the early

1980s to 2006. It was found that American college students showed a systematic increase in scores on the NPI (p. 889). Trzesniewski et al. (2008b), on the other hand, assert that Twenge et al’s claims are exaggerated, in large part due to sampling limitations. Twenge et al. looked at means from previous studies, using a cross-temporal meta-analysis. In other words, they did not have control over sampling. Trzesniewski et al. suggest that the samples in the studies that

Twenge et al. used in their analysis were often small and potentially subject to selection biases

(p.182). Trzesniewski et al. countered this research with research on students at UC Davis and

Berkeley, a sample of 25,848 students, in 1996 and then annually from 2002 to 2007. Not only did they find that narcissism scores had not increased, but there was weak evidence of a modest decrease (p. 183). Twenge et al. (2008b) countered Trzesniewski et al., arguing that data from the UC context might be skewed by specific characteristics of the UC university system.

Specifically, Twenge et al. explain the results of their rivals by describing cultural shifts revolving around Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996. Proposition 209 prohibited UC campuses from using race or ethnicity as a factor in admissions criteria. As a result, the number of Black and Hispanic students decreased, and the number of Asian American students increased. This is significant because Asian Americans tend to score lower on measures relating to individuality, including narcissism (p. 920-1).

Most recently, Twenge, Campbell and Freeman (2012) looked at generational differences in terms of characteristics that might inform the student entitlement phenomenon, including life goals, concern for others and civic orientation. Interestingly, in light of the lack of consensus described above, they start by acknowledging that there are opposing views on generational changes. These opposing views fall into three categories: “the ‘Generation We’ view, the

‘Generation Me’ view and the no change view” (p. 2). The “Generation We” view suggests that

Millennials (born 1982-2003) are more community minded than previous generations. The

“Generation Me” view suggests that the same cohort are a reflection of a more materialistic culture that values superficiality over concern for others. The no-change view, championed by

Trzesniewski et al., argues that there has not been any changes and that, as stated above, studies

that suggest otherwise are unreliable because they were not based on nationally representative studies (p.2). Twenge et al. (2012), in response to this concern raised by their rivals, looked at two large samples going back as far as the Boomer generation, the Monitoring the Future study and the American Freshman survey, which both include items on “life goals, concern for others and concern for others” (p.3). What they found was that Millennials, compared to Boomers, rated goals dealing with money, fame and image as more important, and goals dealing with self- acceptance, affiliation and community as less important. One anomaly was an increase in community service, but this was attributed to an increase in mandatory community service programs in public high schools (p. 14). Overall, Twenge et al. (2012) conclude that their findings support the “Generation Me” view.

The debate between Twenge et al. and Trzesniewski et al., though not yet resolved, does suggest that drawing conclusions about generations or birth cohorts is extremely difficult, and may be beyond the professional humility that academics need to espouse. Particularly in the books of Twenge (separate from her scholarly articles), which were clearly written more for mass consumption than for academic integrity, a sense of certainty is created that narcissism or entitlement has increased over time. Such certainty should be viewed critically by scholars and academics, as it is important to maintain objectivity and a professional level of scrutiny. For this reason, my research does not attempt to characterize young people today relative to the “good ol’ days” but rather this study explores the perceptions of students and faculty regarding entitlement, examines the similarities and difference therein, and explores the extent to which student entitlement may be present within my sample population. Considering the point made by

Twenge et al. (2008b) about local differences within the UC school system, there is support for

the idea that, to make conclusions about student entitlement at the Ontario college level, there is a need for research within this context.

An interesting point that emerged from Trzesniewksi et al.’s (2008b) study, which might help us untangle entitlement from narcissism, was the fact that while narcissism did not increase, there were increases on the entitlement subscale. Taking into account the extent to which the entitlement subscale of the NPI has been correlated with general entitlement, as described above, one inference from that this is that it serves as evidence of increased entitlement, without necessarily an increase in overall narcissism (p. 184). If narcissism as a whole has truly increased, there are still consequences that are relevant to the academic context that are at least related to entitlement. Twenge (2008) notes that narcissistic students have “higher and more unrealistic expectations of educational attainment and success” (p. 891); more students believe they will achieve a degree; and, more students predict that they will become professionals (p.

891-2). This is interesting to consider within the Ontario College context, where mass and, arguably now, universal access to education has been the mandate (Clark, Moran, Skolnik &

Trick, 2009, p. 23). Within a universal system, the intention is that more students will achieve credentials than under an elite system. Therefore, it is not necessarily a sign of entitlement that more students believe they will earn a post-secondary credential. Where some entitlement may lie is within students who don’t recognize that any post-secondary credential will require a requisite level of effort and resilience to complete. Further, jobs in professions are only possible with degrees and usually post-graduate degrees as well, and students would need to be realistic about these requirements when considering their potential for obtaining employment as a professional.

Further examples of entitlement references in the narcissism literature include Pincus,

Ansell, Pimental, Cain, Wright and Levy’s (2009) examination of normal/adaptive narcissism and pathological narcissism (p. 366). Adaptive narcissists tend to be ambitious, satisfied and relatively successful. While this makes it seem like these narcissists are narcissistic “in the good way”, the reality is that they would still likely have disagreeable interpersonal interactions (p.

366). This is similar to the non-exploitive/exploitive distinction made by Lessard et al. (2011).

What Pincus et al. (2009) suggest is that the NPI might measure both maladaptive and adaptive characteristics of narcissism, with entitlement being an aspect of maladaptive narcissism, specifically narcissistic grandiosity, which involve arrogant, conceited and domineering attitudes and behaviours (p. 367). The obvious difficulty here is whether entitlement can be separated out in a valid way, particularly when the subscales have not been deemed to be internally consistent?

While it can be accepted that certain psychological phenomena will have elements in common, it seems clear that references to entitlement within the narcissism literature do not allow for entitlement to be cleanly examined in isolation.

Menon and Sharland (2011) comment on the relationship between narcissism and entitlement, as a separate measure, as they relate to academic dishonesty. They found that an exploitative attitude would mediate the relationship between narcissism/student entitlement and academic dishonesty. In other words, a person who scored high on narcissism/student entitlement measures would be more likely to cheat if they also scored high on exploitative measures (p. 54). This is of interest in that it treats entitlement as a separate measure, but also because it brings in the element of exploitativeness, which was also touched upon by Lessard et al. (2011). Again, while this is helpful in terms of speaking to academic dishonesty, which is an

issue which may relate to entitlement coupled with exploitativeness, it does not address the issue of entitlement more generally, which may not necessarily involve academic dishonesty.

While narcissism may have elements in common with entitlement, or vice versa, and while entitlement is a subscale within the NPI, I felt it important to separate out the power and self-esteem dynamics from the belief that certain actions deserve specific outcomes. As such, I did not include the NPI or narcissism in my research methodology or my discussion of the concept of student entitlement, and instead examined student entitlement as a separate concept.

Profile of an entitled student

From the literature that has been reviewed, it is possible to create a profile of the entitled student as conceptualized thus far. Consider this hypothetical example while will be used for illustrative purposes: A student meets with an advisor to complain about failing a Business

Writing course. The student expresses a lack of understanding of why the professor had failed him. This was how he put it. He wasn’t to blame for failing; the professor was. The student said that he put effort into his assignments, and that should allow him to at least pass. When asked if he understood why the professor had failed him, in terms of the specific issues with his writing, the student couldn’t answer. All that he knew was that he handed the assignments in and thus should pass. When it was suggested that he might want to consider that he needs to improve his writing, the student answered that it wasn’t important and that he was strong enough of a writer to succeed in his career. When asked how he could tell himself that when he was failing his

Business Writing course by a significant margin the student, clearly agitated, dismissed the professor as being “out to get him” and abruptly left the advisor’s office. As illustrated by this example, entitled students will assign blame to external actors for negative outcomes (Lerner,

1987, p. 111; Chowning et al., 2009, p. 985). This tendency is also related to an increased externality in locus of control which, it has been suggested, is also on the rise (Twenge, Zhang &

Im, 2002. Furthermore, entitled students will not be able to accept variations in outcomes and will become angered when expectations are not met (Kelln, 1997, p. 6); they will display a lack of frustration tolerance, will not hesitate to question the relevance of an assignment and will demonstrate the belief that respect for faculty is something that is not granted automatically

(Kelly, 2010, p. 48); they will display less respect and will value themselves more than others

(Campbell et al., 2004, p. 39); they will believe they are more capable than they actually are

(Twenge et al., 2008a, p. 891-2); they will exhibit inappropriately aggressive behaviour, such as incivility towards professors or administrators (Chowning et al., 2009, p. 982); and they will have unrealistic expectations related to grading policies of their professors (Chowning et al.,

2009, p. 984). Another important aspect is the difference in standards between professors and students, with students believing that spending what they perceive to be an appropriate amount of time on an assignment should result in them getting an “A”, while professors may consider the amount of time spent to be irrelevant, relative to the accuracy or completeness of the assignment

(Kopp et al., 2011, p. 107). Again, it is these differences that were examined when comparing the faculty conceptualization of student entitlement to the reaction of this conceptualization from the student focus group, and the sample responses to the new student entitlement measure.

Entitlement: Pervasive or Context-Specific?

As mentioned above, another theme within the literature is whether entitlement is a characteristic that would be pervasive across all situations or specific to particular situations.

Lerner (1987) defines entitlement as being driven by the specific social structure in question but

at the same time, indicates that a model of self-interest will drive most relationships (p. 108).

What this suggests is that it is possible that entitlement would be pervasive across all situations, but that a specific context, in which social norms were different, or perceived to be different, might overcome the tendency within the individual to act entitled. Similarly, Feather (2003) makes the point that a person’s sense of entitlement is tied to an external frame of reference that is external to the person (p. 368). This suggests that the person’s sense of entitlement could be varied if there was a way to manipulate that external frame of reference. This might suggest that entitlement beliefs would be different in different situations, and thus students who behave in an entitled way may not do so in other contexts (Chowning et al., 2009, p. 983; Kopp et al. 2011, p.

107). The opposing view is that entitlement is a “stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (Campbell et al., 2004, p. 31). Behaviours are experienced across situations, not just in specific contexts. Between these two extremes,

Greenberger et al. (2008), in their discussion of entitlement specifically within the academic context, raised the question of whether student entitlement is a domain-specific expression of general entitlement and /or related measures such as narcissism or self-esteem. What they found was that student entitlement was domain specific, but with some elements in common with other measures of entitled or self-centred dispositions (p. 1197).

The importance of whether entitlement is domain specific or more pervasive is that it affects how we as educators might be able to have a positive effect on reversing the characteristic. If students who act entitled do so across all situations, it will be much more unlikely that any response or reaction from professors or administrators will make a difference.

However, if it is a more domain-specific construct, where social norms can be manipulated, then

there are two implications. One is that educators and administrators within educational institutions would need to assess whether policies or cultures within the institution are positively reinforcing entitled behaviour. Secondly, once this is done, it would be necessary to remove or de-emphasize these policies or culture and replace or offset them with policies that are specifically aimed at creating a social norm that is not in line with entitled attitudes and actions.

Considering just one example, student culture is often described as consumer oriented (Delucchi

& Korgen, 2002) or having power over faculty because of the right to evaluate (Delucchi et al.,

2002; Greenberger et al., 2008). For example, student feedback questionnaires, while giving students a needed voice, may also have spawned feelings of entitlement (Greenberger et al, 2008, p. 1204). Students filling out the forms are described as “playing the informed consumer, letting the provider know where he’s come through and where he’s not quite up to snuff” (Delucchi et al., 2002, p. 101). Another example is how Ontario colleges market to potential students. There is a growing debate about the extent to which universities and colleges market to students the way other businesses market to customers (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 107). An interesting local example of this is the Ontario College Information Fair, which is a yearly event to recruit high school students. It is interesting to note the similarity between the event and a trade show, with colourful displays, free swag being handed out and various forms of entertainment to attract students to the booths. The question is: What message are we sending to students. If the message we are sending is WE WANT YOU, then should we be surprised when students develop a consumer orientation to college life? While we must maintain enrolment to survive, we must consider a higher motivation which is to ensure that our students expect higher education to involve effort, challenge, and constructive criticism rather than expecting to be amused, feel

comfortable, and get good grades just for showing up (Delucchi et al. 2002, p. 101). Schings

(2009) conducted a study of 1025 undergrads and found that 52% of those surveyed perceived themselves as customers of the institution which they were attending. Students who perceived themselves as customers were more likely to feel entitled and complain. This lends credence to the theory that a customer orientation will lead to a greater sense of entitlement (p.1). However, all is not lost with our hopes that our student-customers might be convinced to adopt a more favourable attitude. Schings identifies two orientations that a customer can adopt. One orientation is the exchange orientation, which is an exchange of goods or services, where the payer expects the payee to provide a good or service to the payer’s satisfaction. In the academic context, this would be the student paying fees and expecting good grades as a result. The other, more productive, orientation is the service-dominant logic orientation, which recognizes that customers and businesses are co-producers of value (p.1). An excellent example is provided to illustrate this orientation. When you get a haircut, you need to tell the barber what you want in order to get a good haircut. Just paying his fee is not sufficient. Similarly, a student has a role to play even if they view themselves as customers. As a result, colleges would be wise to inform their student-customers that they must co-produce their desired educational outcomes (p. 2).

Beyond the policies or practices of individual institutions, the larger social context must be considered in terms of the construction of the customer orientation that we may be witnessing in our students. This will be discussed below.

With respect to how student expectations actually interact with course expectations,

Buckley et al. (2004) outline a model of relationship between course content and student expectations that involves three stages. Stage 1 relates to the initial expectations that a student

has, based on their perception of the course content and also on their previous experiences. To the extent that these expectations vary from the current course’s expectations, the students’ expectations will be unrealistic and the basis for student dissatisfaction is formed. In Stage 2, the faculty addresses the student’s initial expectations and tried to manage them to be more in line with the course management strategy developed by the faculty member. In Stage 3, the student’s expectations influence their learning in the course (p. 139-40). An important aspect of this stage is the extent to which a student will orient themselves with one of two motivational goal patterns, referred to as learning/mastery orientation and performance orientation. With a learning/mastery orientation, the student seeks to master and learn the material without an emphasis on performance on a piece of evaluation. Compare this with the performance orientation whereby students seek to learn material only for the purpose of performing on a test (p. 140). This is significant when we consider that a learning orientation may drive the student to learn the material any way they can, including consulting sources outside of the classroom. This would relieve the pressure on the teacher in terms of the student’s expectations. In cases where student’s expectations are unrealistic, faculty are advised to use expectation lowering procedures, which would focus on how students generally expect not to have to contribute to their learning, and how such expectations would have a negative influence on their learning and course outcomes (p. 142). With respect to the current study, the differences in expectations were borne out when looking at the faculty conceptualization of student entitlement, the reaction of this conceptualization from the student focus group, and the result of the student entitlement survey.

Social construction of Entitlement

In recognition of the fact that students have a wide array of experiences before they attend College, it is important to consider some of the social constructs that might influence students’ perceptions of education and their expectations of what accompany attending a post- secondary institution involves. In this section, neoliberal government policy, helicopter parenting and student-centred learning will be discussed.

Neoliberal Government Policy

The advent of neoliberalism is an important concept when discussing higher education policy, as it has had direct effects the policies that various governments have put forth to improve our higher educational systems and the economies which they serve. While higher education once sat comfortably in Keynesian models, neoliberalism has introduced a new tension within higher education (Olssen & Peters, 2005). Consider the central presuppositions of neoliberalism, being: “the self-interested individual”; “free market economics”; and “a commitment to laissez faire” (p. 314). All of these considerations fly in the face of the notion that higher education is purely an academic, scholarly enterprise, or a public good, and instead places it more comfortably within the consumer model. The self-interested individual sounds very similar to the student-customer who is only interested in receiving the product for which he/she has paid, without the additional burden of having to meet the institution-service provider’s requirements, unless perceived to be reasonable to the student-customer. Similarly, free- market economics, whereby the market is deemed to be the best way to allocate resources and opportunities, and the commitment to laissez faire, contemplates that the market is best served by self-regulation rather than overly intrusive government control.

Of course, education in Ontario and in most jurisdictions in the world is very much a key aspect of government policy. For Ontario, neo-liberal reforms arguably started happening in the early 1990s under the NDP government, led by Premier Bob Rae. Examples of this included school board amalgamations and province-wide achievement tests whose results would be reported publicly (Gidney, 2002, p. 223). Close to the end of their time in office, the NDP government introduced school councils, mandated standardized tests throughout elementary and high school under the Education Quality and Accountability Office, and launched a task force to examine school board funding and governance (Anderson & Ben Jafaar, 2007). With the election of the PC government under Mike Harris, Ontario saw further neoliberal reforms, with the aggressive reduction in school board budgets and introduction of various pieces of legislation that, among other things, reduced the number of school boards, centralized funding at the provincial level and emphasizing the need for accountability for the quality of education in schools (Anderson & Ben Jafaar, 2007). In 2003, a Liberal government was elected and reversed some of the PC/NDP policies, such as restoring local governance to elected trustees and revocation of the private school tax credit, while maintaining the emphasis on accountability, though shifting the focus to the government itself in terms of meeting benchmarks and increasing graduation rates. Arguably, the Liberal government also introduced supports to the schools such as literacy coordinators, more teachers and class size caps (Anderson & Ben Jafaar, 2007). As well, with the introduction of supports such as Credit Recovery and Credit Rescue (Government of Ontario, 2012), the Liberal government has balanced neo-liberal policies with policies aimed at bridging the gaps for students who might need assistance in completing their studies.

So while there has certainly been an ongoing theme since the early 1990s regarding neoliberal influences on educational policy, recent policies illustrate the limitations of neoliberal theory in the context of higher education. Marginson (2009) notes that “no higher education system fits the market template” (p. 4). He goes on to identify three key reasons for this, which are well represented in the context of Ontario. First, systems that have undergone neoliberal reform do not take the form of true markets but rather “quasi-markets” in which only some of the aspects of a profit-driven market are evident, such as competition between producers. This can be seen in the Ontario College context in terms of competition between institutions that are part of the overall College system. A second point, as noted above, is that education is still very much subject to government steering and intervention, and this effect is more dominant than the relationship between customer and service provider. Lastly, the fundamental goal of profit is largely absent (Marginson, 2009, p. 4) This last point could be seen as contentious as there are certainly for-profit educational institutions, but Margison (2009) argues that “the further one moves up the private sector hierarchy, the more it looks like the American non- profit private sector in which the main objective is not to generate profit for stockholders or even revenues per se, it is to secure prestige and play a social leadership role” (p. 4). At the same time, it cannot be said that post-secondary education is not at all a market or that it has been positioned as having no characteristics of a market. Perhaps it is a more complex market, made up of neo-liberal concepts but also inextricably tied to the reality that education can be both a public good and a private good, that education is both competitive and cooperative and, most importantly, as a function of the proceeding points, the market of education cannot be seen as a conventional economic market. In terms of the present study, it is important to consider the extent to which

students identify themselves as consumers, within the greater context of the market/system in which they find themselves.

Helicopter Parenting

Another important influence on students’ perceptions of appropriate expectations and their overall experience at all levels of education is the role of the parent. Parental support is of course important and can play an important role, but when this continues as a student progresses through higher levels of study, it can become problematic in terms of interfering with a student’s development. This term has been referred to as “helicopter parenting” (Schiffrin et al., 2014, p.

549). Recent studies have identified various outcomes related to the presence of helicopter parenting (LeMoyne and Buchanan, 2011; Padilla-Walker and Nelson, 2012; and Segrin et al.,

2012). These include lower psychological well-being; increased use of medications for depression and anxiety; lower levels of satisfaction with family life; and feeling that though parents are emotionally supportive, the parents also did not grant them sufficient autonomy support (Schiffrin et al., 2014, p. 549). Aside from the effect on the student’s general well-being, of greater concern from the point of educators is to what extent helicopter parenting might affect a student’s learning and development of key employability skills. While there are stories of parents accompanying students to interviews and trying to negotiate salaries on their behalf (C.

Bradley-Geist et al., 2014, p. 317), these are likely extremes. More generally, helicopter parenting is characterized as a parent intervening on their offspring’s behalf, in situations where they may encounter negative emotions, and this prevents them from developing autonomy at a given developmental stage. A study by Segrin et al. (2012) found that helicopter parenting was related to a young adults’ belief that problems should be solved by others (C. Bradley-Geist et

al., 2014, p. 318). Another study by C-Bradley Geist et al. (2014) found that helicopter parenting was negatively related to student’s feeling of social self-efficacy.

How might this relate to a student’s sense of entitlement? Consider a student who has been raised by parents who feel the need to intervene for them anytime a negative experience might be in store for the student, which might include failure or getting a lower than desired mark. The student may learn that this is the appropriate response and may carry this expectation into their post-secondary education. The student may then still rely on parents, as parents will occasionally accompany their children to meeting with advisors, or they may take it upon themselves to “right the wrong” of being made to experience something negative. Another aspect of helicopter parenting that is relevant is that it creates a sense that problems are solved by others and not by the student him or herself. Taking responsibility for one’s own actions and the student’s respective role in the educational process is an important aspect of post-secondary education, and so this tendency would also be problematic. These two characteristics, as will be described in the subsequent chapters of this study, are central to student entitlement, in terms of levels of expectations and in terms of externalized responsibility. It should also be noted that, in a study conducted by Segrin et al. (2014), helicopter parenting was a significant predictor of young adults’ reports of a sense of entitlement.

“Student-Centred” Learning

Another interesting topic to consider with respect to the social construction of student entitlement is the concept of student-centred learning. Lea et al. (2003) provide an excellent summary on the literature on student-centred learning as including the following:

1. “the reliance on active rather than passive learning,

2. an emphasis on deep learning and understanding,

3. increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student,

4. an increased sense of autonomy in the learner,

5. an interdependence between teacher and learner,

6. mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship, and

7. a reflexive approach to the teaching and learning process on the part of both teacher

and learner” (p. 322).

Student-centred learning certainly has aspects that would be empowering to students in a positive manner. However, the emphasis on choice and democracy, which is also a key aspect of the customer dynamic (through the ability of the student to choose where to attend or which program to take, for example) might also inadvertently suggest to students that they should consider themselves as customers. As such, though student-centred learning has seen some benefits in terms of students developing better study skills and understanding (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005, p. 33), it can be problematic in reinforcing the notion that educational institutions literally need to conform to every individual preference or learning style. While of course different learning styles should be taken into consideration in broad terms, Simon (1999) notes that “if each child is unique, and each requires a specific pedagogical approach appropriate to him or her and to no other, the construction of an all embracing pedagogy or general principles of teaching become an impossibility” (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005, p. 33). Two other interesting aspects of student-

centred learning are related. The first is that, if we accept that some students may carry a sense

of entitlement, which would include the idea that problems are due to others or that education is

the responsibility of the institution to provide, then it is logically possible that such a student would not want to be an equal partner in their education. So, students who value more teacher- focused approaches, where they feel more comfortable in the role of passive acceptor of knowledge, would likely reject the student-centred learning approach (O’Neill & McMahon,

2005, p. 33). Along the same lines, is it really student-centred for educational institutions or educational scholars to characterize the nature of “student-centred learning?” While it is wonderful to say that we are putting the student at the centre, which is not uncommon in higher education, are such approaches truly sensitive to the reality of students’ lives and the way they wish to interact with their educational institution? At least in some cases, it may be more honest to say that we are putting our own conceptualization of what students’ want at the centre.

Methodological influences from the literature and Rationale for New Measure

Faculty and Student Perspectives Informing Measurement Creation

When creating a measure of student entitlement, it is paramount that both student and faculty perspectives be taken into consideration to ensure that attribution errors are not made.

While I have outlined possible behaviours and characteristics associated with entitled students, it is still necessary to view the situation from many angles to build confidence in conclusions made. Lerner (1987) cites the work of Ross (1977) who described the fundamental attribution error where people “too readily believe that acts reveal the actor’s internal dispositions: motives, abilities, personal preferences” (p. 119). To try and overcome this limitation, it was important to get perspectives from faculty and students, who are the key actors in the context of the student entitlement problem. A good example of this methodological direction is Achachoso’s (2002) research on academic entitlement. In Achachoso’s research, the academic entitlement measure

was developed by initially conducting open-ended interviews with five professors who ranged in teaching experience. The conversation was started by asking the professors about their experiences with students that revealed the students’ attitudes and behavioural style. Entitlement was not mentioned until the end of the interview. From these discussions, an initial measure was developed, and it was administered to a student focus group that gave the researcher feedback on the merit of the scale, provided suggestions about additional items and the wording of existing items (Achachoso, 2002, p. 45). Compare this with the instruments created by Campbell et al.

(2004); Greenberger et al. (2008); and Chowning and Campbell (2009), in which the academic entitlement measures were initially developed by the research team themselves. This approach would seem to be vulnerable to bias, particularly when the people participating in creating the items would be aware of the research questions the items were meant to inform. To avoid this bias, it is important to develop the items in consultation with students and professors

Similarly, more recently Jackson, Singleton Jackson and Frey (2011), developed an 11- item scale, with the first two authors contributing the items and, Wasielski, Whatley, Briihi and

Branscombe (2014) published a study involving their own academic entitlement scale, in which the 125 statements were also apparently developed (the article is silent on this point) by the researchers themselves. In both cases, the absence of even some measure of faculty/student input was a choice made by the researchers, likely to aid in the ease of creation, but it is a choice that could suggest some level of bias in the formulation of the questions. There was no mention of the items being piloted or validated by either faculty or students. While Wasielski et al.

(2014) stated that their study was in response to a lack of clarity around whether AE is being appropriately or accurately assessed, they also indicate that the purpose of their study was to

“develop and conduct a preliminary validation of a scale of AE” (p. 444). I would argue that, absent faculty and student input, there may be certain perspectives or details that are being missed, potentially diluting our understanding of student entitlement. This is supported by Kopp et al. (2011) who talked about the importance of identifying the “breadth of the construct” (p.

112).

Construct Validity

With the goal of creating a measure of student entitlement appropriate to the Ontario college context and based on the perceptions of students and faculty, one important concern is that of the validity of the tool. The strategy to achieve this is using Benson’s (1998) strong program of construct validity as a framework, which has three stages: a substantive stage, a structural stage and an external stage (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 107). The substantive stage consists of clearly defining the concept to be measured. The structural stage involves examining how the items identified relate to one another, typically using factor analysis. Lastly, the external stage involves examining relationships between the construct and other related constructs, to “assess if these relationships align with theoretical implications established in the substantive stage” (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 107).

So, while I was influenced by Achachoso’s (2002) model of initially identifying items in their construct by consulting faculty, with additions made by consulting with students in focus groups, it wasn’t clear to what extent the items covered the full spectrum of the concept or only certain aspects of it (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 108). For this reason, my substantive stage involved concept-mapping methodology to attempt to conceptualize student entitlement in a structured manner, in the hopes of maximizing the likelihood of identifying the full breadth of the concept.

This allowed me to create a measure whose items map directly to the various dimensions of the construct as identified in the substantive stage, which wasn’t accomplished in the design of other measures of entitlement in the academic context (Achachoso 2002; Greenberger et al. 2008; and,

Chowning et al., 2009). As well, it was important to be able to tie the items to a strong theoretical foundation. This involved taking into account the previous research on entitlement and ensuring that my items addressed the various aspects of the construct identified therein.

Kopp et al. (2011), summarized the conceptualization of academic entitlement as including five key facets, based on their review of the research to date:

1. KR: “[K]nowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the consumer” (Dubovsky, 1986, p. 1672; see also Campbell et al., 2004; Chowning et al., 2009).

2. OP: “[O]thers will provide all of the education that will be necessary” (Dubovsky, 1986, p. 1672; see also Chowning et al., 2009).

3. PL: “[P]roblems in learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, the course, or the system, rather than to the student’s own shortcomings” (Dubovsky, 1986, p. 1672; see also Chowning et al., 2009).

4. SC: students should have control over class policies (Achachoso, 2002).

5. DT: Certain outcomes are deserved because the student pays tuition.

(p. 112)

Contrary to Kopp et al. (2011), who created their own items based on the five facets listed above,

I use the five facets listed above to bolster confidence in the items created as a result of the faculty concept map. In other words, if all of the items created from the concept map can fit into one of the above five facets, I can suggest that my new instrument has a strong theoretical basis and concurrent validity.

Part of my research design was to include the use of a previously validated measure for comparison. I was able to get the consent of Chowning and Campbell (2009) to use their

Academic Entitlement (AE) measure, which includes 15 items distributed across two subscales which were determined using principal components analysis: Externalized Responsibility and

Entitled Expectations. While it was hoped that the use of Chowning and Campbell’s scale would be useful, I will note here that Kopp et al. (2011) were critical of Chowning and Campbell’s process of scale development, particularly with respect to Benson’s (1998) stages of a strong program of construct validity. In terms of substantive issues, Kopp et al. suggest that the two aspects of academic entitlement, chosen by Chowning and Campbell, were “inadequately represented and the theoretical dimensions were not linked with the empirical domain” (p. 109).

Specifically, the Entitled Expectations subscale was characterized as being “too broad and poorly defined” (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 109). Further, items within the Chowning and Campbell instrument were criticized by Kopp et al. for representing a different construct; such as the item

“I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because another group member will end up doing it”, which Kopp et al. argued more appropriately represents the construct of work avoidance. Other items were criticized for referring to experiences, such as group work, that some students may not have experienced. Kopp et al. (2011) were also critical of the structural analysis conducted by Chowning and Campbell (2009), in particular criticizing Chowning and

Campbell for using principal components analysis (PCA) with an orthogonal rotation. PCA was posited to be less appropriate than exploratory factor analysis, given the latent nature of the construct, and the failure of PCA to address measurement error. The orthogonal rotation used was also criticized since it “forces the uncovered components to be uncorrelated, which may not

reflect reality” (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 109). The reliability tests for the AE scale showed

Cronbach’s alpha results that were low for the Entitled Expectations subscale, which was posited by Kopp et al. to be possibly a result of the Entitled Expectations subscale being too heterogeneous (p. 110). Lastly, Kopp et al. conducted confirmatory factor analysis and noted that

Chowning and Campbell (2009) had failed to examine the model-data fit, with their own analysis reporting less than stellar results in terms of the goodness of fit measures; such as, the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) value which, at .897, was less than adequate than the .950 score which is recommended (Byrne, 2010, p. 78-9). Therefore, while it was hoped that the Chowning and Campbell (2009) scale would be helpful, the criticisms of Kopp et al. (2011) had to be taken into account. Further, as will be discussed in Chapter Four, it was necessary to determine whether the Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) scale would be relevant in the Ontario College context, compared to the American university context in which it was created.

As referred to above, Kopp et al. (2011) provide direction in terms of the structural stage of a program of construct validity, recommending using structural analysis to maximize model fit. Using concept mapping to identify an initial model with proposed factors, it was possible to test the model using confirmatory factor analysis and, as necessary, move on to exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis to identify the appropriate model in terms of factors and model fit.

Rationale for creation of new measure; Context

All of the measures to date have contributed to our understanding of student entitlement; however, it was my goal to have both a more rigorously structured conceptualization of student entitlement, using concept mapping methodology, and that takes into account the perspectives of

faculty and students. This is in contrast to conceptualizations developed by the researcher themselves, which was the case for most of the measures created to date, with the exception of

Achachoso (2002). However, while Achachoso used faculty to develop items, I believe the use of concept mapping produced a more structured and comprehensive conceptualization that allowed me to identify themes, which, as suggested by Kopp et al. (2011), could be tested using the appropriate combination of confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis/principal components analysis, to ensure that the final product has the best fit in terms of the model and its underlying factors.

Lastly, because the current study was conducted within the Ontario College context, it is reasonable for this conceptualization of the concept to be done by faculty and students in that context, and not based on faculty or researcher perspectives from the university context. Most of the studies that I reviewed focused on university undergraduate students from the US. One was from Australia (Feather, 2003) and one was from Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Jackson et al.,

2011). The current research focuses on Ontario students in the college context. Various studies that were conducted within the university context also came up with different models, though there is predictably much conceptual overlap. While it was predicted that the findings in the present study would follow suit in terms of some conceptual overlap, there was also a strong rationale for the creation of a new measure that is both specific to the Ontario College context, but that was also conceptualized in a structured way by faculty, and developed using a strong program of construct validity as set out by Benson (1998). By doing so, it is hoped that this study will contribute to the body of literature on entitlement in the academic context by providing perspectives on the issue from the Ontario college context.

Summary of Chapter Two

This chapter provided a review of the relevant literature on entitlement, primarily focusing on the definitional ambiguity that exists within the literature, particularly with respect to the relationship between entitlement and deservingness, and entitlement and narcissism, with the conclusion being reached that entitlement and deservingness are generally seen as the same thing and narcissism contains a power element that may not exist with student entitlement. The review of the literature also identified the debate on whether narcissism/entitlement has increased across generations, which highlighted the dangers in making broad claims about generational effects when studying personality traits. The extent to which entitlement is domain-specific or pervasive across situations was discussed, and it was highlighted that if student entitlement is domain- specific, this will make it more likely that we as educators might be able to alter the normative expectations upon which such entitlement is built. Also, some of the influences on the social construction of entitlement were explored, including neoliberal government policy, helicopter parenting, and student-centred learning. Lastly, a profile of the entitled student was put together from the literature and the methodological influences from the literature and a rationale for a new measure were identified. In Chapter Three, I will outline the methodology used for my study, which is influenced by Achachoso’s (2002) research, Trochim’s (1989) concept mapping methodology, and Kopp et al.’s (2011) research on the appropriate methodology for the development of a student entitlement scale.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As stated in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to examine faculty perceptions of student entitlement with the goal of mapping the concept and creating a student entitlement survey; examine the extent to which the faculty’s conceptualization is consistent with student entitlement as has been defined/constructed in the literature; gain perspective on students’ perceptions of student entitlement by allowing them to pilot the newly created student entitlement survey and participate in a discussion about student entitlement; survey a sample of diploma students at an Ontario College and use the results to identify the latent variables found within the concept of student entitlement; and examine the degree and extent to which students at a GTA college report entitled tendencies in beliefs. Using Achachoso’s (2002) method of using faculty to create the items used in the measure, Trochim’s (1989) concept mapping methodology as a basis for a structured conceptualization of a concept, factor analysis, and the five facets of the theoretical basis of student entitlement (which they refer to as academic entitlement) outlined by Kopp et al. (2011), this study will attempt to answer the following questions:

1. How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student

entitlement?

2. How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s

(2011) five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement?

3. Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement

derived from faculty?

4. What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

5. What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

Participants

Subjects who participated in the study were faculty and students from three large academic schools (Business, Health Sciences and Media Studies) at the subject college, a large college in the Greater Toronto Area with over 25,000 students. Faculty participated in the concept mapping portion of the research and a faculty focus group, and students participated in the piloting of a new student entitlement survey, as well as the full administration of the survey.

In terms of faculty, ten (10) faculty were selected to participate, with four coming from

The Business School, four from the School of Health Sciences, and two from the School of

Media Studies. All faculty members were informed by letter that they must have been teaching for over three years to participate in the study.

In terms of students for the pilot testing and focus group, focus group participants were from the three academic schools identified above, with four of the participants identifying as male and the remaining two identifying as female. Three students were in their second or third year of study in a diploma or advanced diploma program, and three were in the first year of their diploma program. Students for the full administration of the survey were primarily diploma students from the three academic schools identified above.

Rationale for Research Design

The research design that I have chosen reflects four main goals:

1. Conceptualizing student entitlement using a logically structured method which can lead

to the creation of a student entitlement measure;

2. Using both student and faculty perspectives to achieve Goal #1;

3. Understanding the impact of student entitlement behaviour on learning and faculty

satisfaction; and

4. Validating the conceptual structure using factor analysis and comparing how the

underlying factors relate to the five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement

described by Kopp et al. (2011).

My choice of research design was influenced by a number of authors, including

Achachoso’s (2002) methodology for developing a student entitlement measure, Trochim’s

(1989) concept mapping methodology, and Kopp et al.’s methodology for appropriately validating a student entitlement model. Achachoso’s methodology was unique in that it involved using faculty interviews to generate an initial 50-item questionnaire, rather than using measures created only from the perspective of the researcher. Achachoso also piloted the questionnaire with a group of students as part of a focus group discussion, allowing the students to comment on the merits of the scale, suggest changes to wording and also suggest possible additional items.

The strength of Achachoso’s approach is the use of faculty to begin construction of a conceptual basis for the measure, and then bringing in students to evaluate the measure not only in terms of clarity and potential gaps but also in terms of their reaction to the scale and/or concept. My design built on this virtue by using a more structured process to conceptualize student entitlement, based on the research of Trochim (1989), which included “brainstorming, statement analysis and synthesis, unstructured sorting of statements, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis and the generation of numerous interpretable maps and data displays” (Kane et al. 2007, p. 1). The technique has been successfully used by the Hawaii Department of Health to explore the factors relating to behaviours related to tobacco, nutrition and physical activity. It was also

used by the National Cancer Institute to create evaluation criteria for tobacco-user research centers (Kane et al, 2007, p. 2-3).

While concept mapping allowed for an open contribution from stakeholders on a specific issue, it also allowed me to organize the ideas in a manner that allowed them to be portrayed in maps that were further interpreted in terms of identifying potential themes or areas of focus. The most relevant (highly rated) items from within each theme were used as the basis for survey questions, and the survey was piloted with students to ensure the wording was clear and then administered to a sample of students for further analysis, including confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis/principal components analysis to further hone the model, based on the recommendations outlined by Kopp et al. (2011) for how to conduct an appropriate analysis of a conceptual model.

Once the best model fit was identified, it was possible to create an entitlement score which could then by applied to the survey sample to identify the prevalence of student entitlement, from very low to very high.

Perspectives on the impact of student entitlement were sought by conducting a focus group with faculty who participated in the concept mapping exercise.

Study Procedure

Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement?

The study began by assembling a faculty group who could participate in the concept mapping exercise. Faculty from three large academic Schools (Business, Health Sciences and

Media Studies) teaching in diploma programs within the subject college were contacted through the Schools’ respective office managers and interested faculty were asked to email me to confirm their interest in participating. The criterion for participation was that faculty had to have been teaching for at least three years. Ten (10) faculty agreed to participate, with four coming from

The Business School, four from the School of Health Sciences, and two from the School of

Media Studies.

Interested faculty were emailed instructions about how to access the Concept Systems software, which they were able to access online using a unique username and password. The first stage of the concept mapping process was for faculty to brainstorm statements that completed the statement “Behaviours that reflect a sense of entitlement are…” Faculty were given one week to suggest as many statements as they could. When a faculty member would logon, the software would also show them statements already thought of by other participants to avoid duplication.

Despite this, certain statements were removed for repeating the same concepts or for lack of clarity.

Faculty participants were then invited to logon to the Concept Systems software again, where they were asked to complete two tasks. The first task was to rate each item for its relative importance to the concept of student entitlement, on a 1 to 5 scale where: 1 = not relevant; 2 = somewhat relevant; 3 = moderately relevant; 4 = very relevant; and 5 = extremely relevant. In addition, faculty participants were asked to group the statements according to their impression of how similar they were in meaning or theme. Figures 1 and 2 show screenshots of the instructions for sorting, as well as the sorting page where participants could sort statements on a virtual tabletop.

INSTRUCTIONS: In this activity, you will categorize the statements, according to your view of their meaning or theme. To do this, you will sort each statement into piles in a way that makes sense to you. First, read through the statements in the Unsorted Statements column to the left.

Next, sort each statement into a pile you create. Group the statements for how similar in meaning or theme they are to one another. Give each pile a name that describes its theme or contents.

Do NOT create piles according to priority, or value, such as 'Important', or 'Hard To Do.'

Do NOT create piles such as 'Miscellaneous' or “Other” that group together dissimilar statements. Put a statement alone in its own pile if it is unrelated to all the other statements. Make sure every statement is put somewhere. Do not leave any statements in the Unsorted Statements column.

People vary in how many piles they create. Usually 50 to 20 piles works well to organize this number of statements.

Figure 1- Sorting instructions from CS software (Concept Systems Inc.)

Figure 2 - Table top screen shot to show how statements could be sorted. (Concept Systems Inc.)

Once the sorting and rating phase was completed, the Concept Systems software created two-dimensional plots using multi-dimensional scaling analysis and cluster analysis, based on

the sorting and rating conducted by faculty participants. The software uses the square similarity matrix which is populated with each faculty’s sorting data, to create point maps of statements which are presumably grouped based on reflecting similar concepts. The software also allows you to choose how many clusters the final model should have. This is a matter of interpretation and judgement and Trochim (1989) provides the following advice to analysts:

Essentially, the analyst must use discretion in examining different cluster solutions to decide on which makes sense for the case at hand. Usually, assuming a set of a hundred or fewer statements, we begin by looking at all cluster solutions from about 20 to 3 clusters. Each time the analysis moves from one cluster level to the next lowest (e.g., from 13 to 12 clusters) we examine which statements were grouped together at that step and attempt to decide whether that grouping makes sense for the statements in the conceptualization. In examining different cluster solutions we have found it useful to use a cluster tree which shows pictorially all possible cluster solutions and mergers. In general, we attempt to decide on a cluster solution which, if anything, errs on the side of more clusters than fewer. (p. 8).

Once the final model was chosen, in terms of appropriate number of clusters where each cluster contained statements that were thematically consistent, faculty were invited to a focus group where they could view the resulting model and discuss their views on student entitlement in terms of impact, as will be discussed below under Research Question 5.

Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization map to Kopp et al’s (2011) five facets of the theoretical basis academic entitlement?

Kopp et al. (2011) identify five facets for the theoretical basis of academic entitlement

(referred to as student entitlement in the present study), based on their examination of the existing body of literature at the time of writing, which are described below:

2. OP: “[O]thers will provide all of the education that will be necessary” (Dubovsky, 1986, p. 1672; see also Chowning et al., 2009).

4. SC: students should have control over class policies (Achachoso, 2002).

5. DT: Certain outcomes are deserved because the student pays tuition.

(p. 112)

Based on the model developed from the cluster map created during the concept mapping phase, which was further refined using confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory principal components analysis based on student survey data, the themes/factors identified were compared to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets for similarities and differences.

Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty?

Based on the statements and clusters from the concept mapping phase of the study, further refined upon comparison with Kopp et al.’s five facets, survey questions were created by choosing the highest rated statements and/or by eliminating statements that were potentially too loaded in terms of leading the subject to answer in a specific way by implying a desired/ideal response. The statements were also edited in terms of sentence structure to give the survey consistent tone.

In addition to questions generated from the concept mapping, questions from another study were added to my survey, to allow for comparison and contrast during the data analysis

phase of the study. Included, with their consent, were 15 questions from the research of

Chowning and Campbell (2009).

To ensure the questionnaire was ready for full administration, a small sample of students from the same academic Schools (Business, Health Sciences, and Media Studies) was assembled to pilot the questionnaire, by asking the office managers of each School to send messages to students about the opportunity to participate in a research study. Six students participated in total, with two students from each academic school. Four students were male and two students were female. Three students were in their second or third year of study in a diploma or advanced diploma program, and three were in the first year of their diploma program. Interested participants were asked to complete the questionnaire, answering each question but also indicating for each question whether: the question was understandable; the question had only one possible response; the question did not work with the provided scale; and, the question was loaded (Andres, 2012, p. 86-7) In addition to questions addressing the clarity or suitability of the tool, I took the opportunity with a captive audience of students to discuss the questionnaire in terms of their overall impressions of its focus and/or underlying meaning. Students were asked their impressions of student entitlement and whether they believed it existed at the College, about expectations-setting that may or may not happen when they arrive at the College, and about their expectations of what College should provide/be about. Pilot testing was completed at the end of the fall 2015 semester.

At the start of the winter 2016 semester, the newly created student entitlement survey was distributed to diploma students in the three academic Schools (Business, Health Sciences, and

Media Studies) and from which faculty and pilot participants had been selected. A total of 6,522

students were contacted using an email software client that allowed for individualized emails to be sent to large groups. This consisted of 3,401 Business School students, 2,010 Health Sciences students, and 1,111 Media Studies students. Students were sent a link to the questionnaire posted on fluidsurveys.com, a copy of which can be found at Appendix A. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants were instantly linked to a page where they could enter their name and email address details for a prize draw for an Apple iPad Mini. The data from the incentive draw were given to a research assistant for selection of the winner and awarding of the prize. The survey had 892 respondents, which is a response rate of 13.7%. Though the response rate was relatively low, the overall number was significant and appropriate for factor analysis. While the sample could not be said to be representative of the entire student body, in light of the students contacted being from diploma students only and from three academic schools, the school response rate was consistent with the relative size of Schools. Students were more often studying in semesters 2 and 4, which is consistent with the fact that semester 2 and 4 students are the largest cohort in the winter semester. International students also responded in proportion to their representation in the overall population of 2-year diploma students.

One concern when conducting research that relates to an unflattering characteristic is that participants will under-report the presence of said characteristic. Greenberger et al. (2008) noted that the results they received when administering their Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES) were modest because of the unflattering topic of their research. Results will likely be more accurate if students who are completing the questionnaire are not aware of what is being measured at the time of measurement. This was not a strategy that was employed, with the one small exception being that the term student entitlement was not used in the survey, but was rather

described as a survey about student attitudes. The information letter, however, did refer to the title of the study being about student entitlement. If we consider student entitlement to really be a continuum from no or little entitlement to high or very high entitlement, referring to the survey as being about student attitudes is not really that far off from the truth. More dramatic measures of deception, such as couching survey questions within the context of other unrelated questions, were considered impractical and were not used. The merits of deception, which is often used in psychology (Menges, 1973,; TCPS 2, 2005,), can be countered with the merits of more openness and honesty in research. Jourard (1968) described the ideal research setting as one where the subject can learn about themselves and in return they can “gladly come into your lab and virtually strip [their] body and soul naked” (p. 11-12). While Jourard’s point is clearly overstated for effect, the more tempered concept of generally being open and clear was followed. Further, by using an anonymous, online instrument, and a chance to win a good prize (Apple iPad mini), a healthy response rate was achieved and it is hoped that this data collection methodology contributed to subjects’ willingness to provide accurate, valid data (Reddy, Fleming, Howells,

Rabenhorst, Casselman, and Rosenbaum, 2006).

Once the survey data were collected, as recommended by Kopp et al. (2011), a combination of confirmatory and exploratory factor/principal components analyses were conducted to ensure that the most appropriate model was developed. In the case of the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was initially conducted on a four-factor model based on the outcome of the concept mapping exercise. Using the AMOS software, a four-factor model was tested to see if it met key goodness-of-fit measures. The 4-factor model was assessed using a number of goodness of fit statistics, including the Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted

Goodness-of-fit Index (AGFI), which are measures of the variance and covariance in the sample that is jointly explained by the hypothesized model, comparing it with no model at all. Values close to 1.00 are indicative of good fit (Byrne, 2010, p.77). Another goodness-of-fit statistic that was employed, the Normed Fit Index (NFI), was at one time considered the classic goodness of fit statistic, with the related Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Relative Fit Index (RFI) being developed later to account for sample size. Values close to .95 are desired with the CFI being the index of choice (Byrne, 2010, p. 79). The next goodness-of-fit statistic used was the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is considered one of the more informative criteria in assessing structural equation modelling. The RMSEA measures the error in approximation in the population. It is recommended that the RMSEA error value be less than .05 for the model to be considered of good fit. Lastly, a related value to the RMSEA, the PCLOSE value, was assessed. The PCLOSE value tests the hypothesis that the RMSEA is good, in terms of actually being less than .05. The ideal PCLOSE value is greater than .50 (Byrne, 2010, p. 81).

In addition to goodness-of-fit indices, another metric used was the Standardized Residual

Covariance, which measures differences in the covariance matrices between the hypothesized model and the sample population. Values above 2.58 are considered to be large and the goal in finding the best model is to have a minimum of Standardized Residual Covariance values that fall above this value (Byrne, 2010, p. 86).

Due to a less than ideal fit (based on the metrics described above and discussed in detail in Chapter Four) with the 4-factor model, exploratory factor analysis was then conducted with a

1-factor model to test the simplest model. Due to poor fit results using a 1-factor model, exploratory principal components analysis was then conducted and identified a 3-factor model.

This 3-factor model was then validated using confirmatory factor analysis and found to produce the best model fit statistics when compared to the 4-factor and the 1-factor models.

Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

Using the 3-factor model, found to have the best goodness-of-fit statistics, individual factor scores were calculated and a Student Entitlement score was created by summing individual factor scores. As well, standardized (Z-score) individual factor and Student

Entitlement scores were generated. Categories of student entitlement were then developed, ranging from very low to very high, based on cut-offs using the standard deviation for the sample distribution of Student entitlement Z-scores. The number and percentage of students in each score category was examined to establish prevalence. Mean Student Entitlement scores were also calculated for selected variables to identify any significant differences in terms of gender, academic school, year of study, or age.

Research Question 5 – What is the impact of student entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

The ten faculty members who participated in the concept mapping phase of the study were invited to attend a 2-hour focus group to discuss the impact of student entitlement.

Specifically, faculty participants were asked to answer the following questions. I have also included talking points that were suggested to participants and used as starting points to generate a broader discussion on the topic of student entitlement:

1. What do you believe the impact of entitlement is on students while they are studying at

the College?

(a) Is there an impact on grades?

(b) Is there an impact on student-faculty connection?

2. What do you believe the impact of entitlement is on students after they have left the

College?

(a) Is there an impact on gaining employment?

(b) Is there an impact on success within an organization?

3. What is the impact of entitlement on the level of satisfaction you get from your job?

(a) How does an entitled student make you feel?

(b) Do you feel like you can counteract entitled behaviours?

(d) Are there things that the College is doing to increase or decrease the likelihood of

entitled behaviours?

4. How and to what extent do you feel you need to change your practices in order to address

entitled student behaviour?

(a) Have you modified your policies or communications within your program or course to

specifically address entitlement concerns?

(b) Is it your perception that there is more entitlement now than in previous years? How

do you account for this change, if any?

to us with entitled attitudes/behaviours?

Summary of Chapter Three

This chapter provided a detailed summary of the methodology used in this study, organized by research question. I have outlined the research design, as influenced by Achachoso’s (2002) use of faculty and students for creation of an entitlement measure; Trochim’s (1989) concept mapping methodology and Kopp et al. methodological recommendations as well as their summary of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement (referred to in the present study as student entitlement) to date (2011).

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Five research questions have been identified for this study, which I reproduce here for the ease of the reader:

1. How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student

entitlement?

2. How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s

(2011) five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement?

3. Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement

derived from faculty?

4. What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

5. What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

The results presented below are organized according to each of these research questions in turn.

Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement?

Ten faculty members from 3 large academic schools (Business, Health and Media

Studies) at the subject college were asked to participate in a concept mapping exercise to conceptualize student entitlement in a structured manner, using the online-accessible Concept

Systems software based on Trochim’s (1989) research. The concept mapping process involved three main stages: brainstorming, sorting/rating and cluster analysis.

During the brainstorming phase of the concept mapping exercise, faculty participants were asked to brainstorm statements to complete the statement “Behaviours that reflect a sense of entitlement are…” Faculty participants brainstormed 77 statements, which are included as 57

Appendix B. These raw statements were then revised to remove duplicate items or items that did not fit within the concept of student entitlement, as discussed in the literature. The revised statements are included as Appendix C. The revision process reduced the number of statements from 77 to 65.

Once brainstorming was completed and the list of statements revised, faculty were asked to rate each statement for its relative importance to the concept of student entitlement using a 1 to 5 scale, where: 1 = not relevant; 2 = somewhat relevant; 3 = moderately relevant; 4 = very relevant; and 5 = extremely relevant. In addition, faculty participants were also asked to group the statements, according to their impression of how similar they are in meaning or theme.

Once the sorting and rating process was completed, I used the Concept Systems software to conduct cluster analysis. The software allows you to identify the number of clusters that are appropriate, based on grouping like-items together. For example, you would know you had too many clusters if items in different clusters seemed to be conceptually or thematically related.

Similarly, two few clusters would group items that should be distinct. The software also suggests an initial label for the clusters chosen, based on the highest rated item in the cluster. In trying to map the themes to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets, which will be discussed below, I edited the cluster labels to both reflect the items contained within but also to tie them to one of

Kopp’s five facets, where appropriate. This process initially identified a five-factor model.

Figure 3 shows the five-factor model, which includes the themes: Tuition equals outcomes;

Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort; I am a customer, serve me; Problems are due to others, not me; and, Lack of professionalism.

Figure 3 - Graphic of 5 factor model initially created from concept mapping exercise with Ontario College faculty

The five categories and their corresponding statements are included as Appendix D.

Because the category Lack of Professionalism did not seem to fit well within the concept of student entitlement, both intuitively and also in comparison to the five facets identified by

Kopp et al. (2011), and because the items within this category seemed to fit well within other categories, items were moved from the Lack of Professionalism category into the remaining four categories, as appropriate, and the category was eliminated. For example, the statement that students have an “expectation that faculty will find a way for the student to pass by making up part of a course” was moved to the “I am a customer, serve me” category. The full process of reducing the statements/clusters from 5 themes to four is included as Appendix E. Figure 4 shows the resulting four categories, which appear to overlap, in terms of the clusters, more than

the five category model. This is because it was based on the sorting and rating done by faculty

and the original two dimensional plotting of the statements. The identification of the relative importance of each theme/cluster and their significance to the concept of student entitlement was less important at this stage, since this would be analyzed using factor analysis, as will be described later in the chapter. What was important at this stage was to establish that the conceptualization of student entitlement by faculty using concept mapping suggested a four- factor model of entitlement.

Figure 4 - Graphic of 4 factor model after Lack of Professionalism category removed

Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn,

Finney, and Jurich’s (2011), five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement?

As discussed above, the faculty concept mapping exercise resulted in a four-factor model of student entitlement. Kopp et al. (2011), in reviewing authors dating back to Dubovsky (1986) to Chowning and Campbell (2009), summarized the conceptual state of entitlement in the

literature as containing five facets. Therefore, to assess the extent to which the four themes identified during the concept mapping part of the study were consistent with or distinct from the research to date, they were compared with the five facets identified by Kopp et al. (2009, p. 112).

Table 1 shows both the five facets and the four themes.

Table 1 – Comparison of concept mapping themes to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets of academic entitlement

Concept Mapping Themes Kopp et al. (2011) Five Facets 1. Tuition equals outcomes. 5. Certain outcomes are deserved because the student pays tuition. 2. Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require 1. Knowledge is a right that should be effort delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’

2. Others will provide all of the education that is necessary 3. I am a customer, serve me. 1. Knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’

2. Others will provide all of the education that is necessary

4. Students should have control over class policies. 4. Problems are due to others, not me. 3. Problems in learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, rather than the student’s own shortcomings.

As shown in Table 1, and as was mentioned in Chapter 3, clusters that conceptually

corresponded to the five facets were so named for ease of reference; such as, the theme of

“Tuition equals outcomes” and the facet “Certain outcomes are deserved because student pays

tuition; the theme “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort” and “Knowledge is a right

that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the

‘consumer’; or the theme “Problems are due to others, not me” and the facet “Problems in

learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, rather than the student’s own shortcomings.”

However, there are also examples of lack of full correspondence with the five facets identified by

Kopp et al. The facet “Others will provide all of the education that will be necessary” could arguably be tied to two themes, being “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort” and “I am a customer, serve me.” The facet “Students should have control over class policies” wasn’t explicitly identified as an overall theme, but it could be encapsulated in the “I am a customer, serve me” theme, as some of the items within this theme speak to the concept of more control over class policies. Lastly, the “I am a customer, serve me” theme could correspond to three facets identified by Kopp et al, being “Knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’”; “Others will provide all of the education that is necessary”, and “Students should have control over class policies.”

As mentioned above, the concept mapping exercise did originally identify a five cluster model, however the fifth cluster, Lack of Professionalism, seemed to both not fit within the student entitlement concept but also the items contained within seemed to easily fit within the remaining four clusters. Therefore, it was decided that the items would be moved to the other clusters, as shown in Appendix E, and the model reduced to a four factor model, which could then be tested using confirmatory factor analysis, after creating, piloting and administering a new

Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire.

Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty?

This question was answered by creating a new Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire from highly rated and/or highly relevant statements from the concept mapping exercise, which were then written as survey items. The questionnaire was piloted with a group of six students for

clarity and for their impressions regarding the questionnaire and their impressions of student entitlement more generally. Once the questionnaire was piloted, it was administered to a sample of students. The results of the survey allowed for analysis of the latent variables of student entitlement, which resulted in a different model than the one with which we began. From this revised model, scores for each factor were determined, which was instrumental in identifying the extent to which Ontario College students are entitled, using ratings from Very Low to Very

High. The discussion of the prevalence of entitlement will be discussed under Research

Question 4. I will now turn to how the scale was created, piloted, administered, and how the resulting data were analyzed.

Initial Assembly of Items for Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire

With four themes identified and items identified during the concept mapping phase distributed among the four themes, the next step was to identify appropriate items which could be used as questionnaire items. The goal was to identify items that were both highly rated by faculty in terms of their importance to the concept of student entitlement while also ensuring that items weren’t problematic in terms of being loaded, or containing multiple elements (Andres,

2012 p. 81-83). Appendix E shows items organized by theme as well as showing their average rating by faculty during concept mapping. Appendix E also shows comments to explain why items were included or excluded. Analysis of the items revealed that some could arguably fit in other themes. For example, the statement “Becoming agitated when they realize that class requirements apply to them, even if they are uncomfortable with them (e.g. Presentations)” was most often grouped by faculty as appropriately being in the “Tuition Equals Outcomes” theme.

Another example is the statement “Belief that students have a right to make up tests and exams because they paid tuition”, which was grouped by faculty in the “I am a customer. Serve me”

theme. Statements were not moved however, because I felt it was important not to interfere with the faculty conceptualization at this point, knowing that factor analysis would demonstrate both the appropriate model and to which factor questions loaded on most significantly. Table 2 shows the survey items that were created from the statements as well as their corresponding statement, and the theme to which they belong.

Table 2 - Questionnaire items with corresponding statements and themes from faculty concept mapping exercise.

Questionnaire item Statement Theme 1. I should pass a course if I Believing that a student has a Tuitions Equals Outcomes complete all course requirements, right to pass the course if they regardless of the quality of my complete all the course work. requirements, regardless of the quality of their work.

2. Paying tuition should mean I Believing that payment of Tuitions Equals Outcomes obtain a passing grade. tuition fees should result in desired outcome.

3. I shouldn’t have to complete Becoming agitated when they Tuitions Equals Outcomes course requirements if I am realize that class requirements uncomfortable with them (eg. apply to them, even if they are Presentations, group work, field uncomfortable with them (eg. research) Presentations)

4. Learning is an activity in which Not understanding that learning Knowledge is a right that students need to participate in is an activity in which students doesn't require effort order to be successful. need to engage.

5. It is unfair to test me on Believing it is unfair for a test Knowledge is a right that material that wasn’t covered in to include questions on material doesn't require effort class, even if it was part of the that is in the required reading assigned readings. but not expressly discussed in class.

6. I shouldn’t have to take notes Believing that they shouldn't Knowledge is a right that because my professor should have to take notes, that doesn't require effort provide me with everything I need everything should be provided to learn. to them 7. It is not my responsibility to be Believing it is not the Knowledge is a right that motivated to learn, my professors responsibility of students to be doesn't require effort need to teach me. motivated to learn

8. If I miss a class, the professor Believing it is the teacher's Knowledge is a right that should provide me with the responsibility to get the student doesn't require effort information and materials that I up to date when the student is missed. absent or late

9. My professor should reply to Expecting instantaneous I am a customer. Serve me. emails within a few hours. responses to e-mails.

10. I pay tuition and therefore I Believing the educational I am a customer. Serve me. should get to have a schedule that program should be designed to suits my needs. suit the student's scheduling preferences.

11. I have a right to do make-up Belief that students have a right I am a customer. Serve me. tests and assignments I miss to make up tests and exams because I pay tuition. because they paid tuition

12. If I am failing a class, the Expectation that faculty will I am a customer. Serve me. professor should give me a chance find a way for student to pass to complete an extra assignment to by making up part of a course pass. 13. It is common for professors to Believing a lower mark is Problems are due to others, not give students a low mark because given because the teacher me. they don’t like them. doesn't like him/her and not because of the quality of work

14. I consider it disrespectful if a Believing that any criticism of Problems are due to others, not professor is critical of the work I student work is disrespectful me. do. 15. I think college rules/academic Believing rules do not apply to Problems are due to others, not policies should be flexible and not them; they are always the me. apply to all students. exception

16. If I fail a class, it’s more likely Believing that nothing is their Problems are due to others, not because my professor didn’t teach fault or find fault in others me. well than because of my level of when things don't go their way effort.

Completion of Questionnaire; Adding items from Chowning and Campbell (2009)

With the questions for the new Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire drafted, the next step was to choose a response rating scale. Because of the decision to include questions from a scale developed by other researchers as a point of comparison, it was decided to use a seven

point scale, as was done by Chowning and Campbell (2009). With 16 questions from the SE questionnaire and 15 questions from Chowning and Campbell’s Academic Entitlement (AE) questionnaire, which are reproduced in Table 3, the questionnaire that would be piloted and administered to students contained a total of 31 items.

Table 3 - Survey items from Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) Academic Entitlement (AE) scale, organized by subscale.

Subscale Questions

Externalized Responsibility 1. It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions.

2. If I miss class, it is my responsibility to get the notes. (Reverse)

3. I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because another group member will end up doing it.

6. I believe that the university does not provide me with the resources I need to succeed in college.

7. Most professors don’t really know what they are talking about.

10. If I do poorly in a course and I could not make my professor’s office hours, the fault lies with my professor.

11. I believe that it is my responsibility to seek out the resources to succeed in college. (Reverse)

12. For group assignments, it is acceptable to take a back seat and let others do most of the work if I am busy.

13. For group work, I should receive the same grade as the other group members regardless of my level of effort.

15. Professors are just employees who get money for teaching.

Entitled Expectations 4. My professors are obligated to help me prepare for exams.

5. Professors must be entertaining to be good.

8. My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the grade I want.

9. I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in.

14. My professors should curve my grade if I am close to the next letter grade.

As described in Table 3, Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) research proposes a 2-factor model, with the factors Externalized Responsibility, which corresponds to Kopp et al.’s (2011) facet,

“Problems in learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, the course, or the system, rather than the student’s own shortcomings” (p. 112), and Entitled Expectations, which is curious in that its name seems to encapsulate the overall concept of student entitlement. Analysis of student data from the present study, as it relates to Chowning and Campbell’s AE scale will be discussed below (keeping in mind the criticisms of the Chowning and Campbell’s AE scale by

Kopp et al. (2011)), and will be included in the discussion of factor analysis and principal components analysis that was conducted on the newly created SE questionnaire.

Pilot Testing the SE questionnaire with Student Focus Group

Piloting a questionnaire is extremely important to ensure that the questions are worded clearly and that they don’t offend best practices of question design; such as, not using loaded questions, double barreled questions, or questions that don’t work well with the scale provided

(Andres, 2012, p. 82-86). To achieve this, a pilot group of students was assembled to complete the draft SE questionnaire, which included the items from the Chowning and Campbell (2009)

Academic Entitlement scale. I was able to secure six students, with equal representation from each academic school. A version of the questionnaire was created which included demographic

questions about gender, age, highest level of education attained, as well as an area where students could answer questions related to the clarity and appropriateness of the questions as reproduced below as Table 4.

Table 4 - Pilot survey question related to clarity and appropriateness of survey items

Understandable? Only one response? Scale Adequate? Loaded? Comments?

YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO

Appendix F shows the full pilot version of the questionnaire. The pilot session was recorded and

transcribed to ensure all discussions and impressions were captured. In terms of issues of clarity

of the questions, the discussion revealed that students’ confusion regarding the questions, though

limited, were a product of their belief that certain standards or expectations found within the questions were context specific. For example, one student commented that Question 1, which asks a student to rate their level of agreement with the statement “I should pass a course if I complete all course requirements, regardless of the quality of my work”, was confusing because it depended on the kind of course. When I asked if he was referring only to a pass-fail course, the student insisted there may be some courses, other than a pass-fail course, where just completing the work would be sufficient, but the student was unable to offer up an example. The same student also confused the concept of a question being written so as to solicit one response to mean that he might individually feel different about the answer depending on the specific situation. Another interesting example was Question 11, “If I am failing a class, the professor

should give me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass.” Again, one participant volunteered that it would be dependent on the kind of student and the level of effort they had put in throughout the semester.

Question 4, “Learning is an activity in which students need to participate in order to be successful”, though clear, was considered by one student to be loaded because the messaging of the College from the very beginning of the student’s contact with the institution reinforces this concept. The student, when pressed however, couldn’t identify an example and other students did not support this assertion.

Based on the above, it was decided that there were no major issues with question wording or clarity, as the few concerns that there were, were either based on a context-dependent view of the questions being asked, or were tied to assertions that the student couldn’t justify. However, I was also able to ask students some questions about student entitlement, which was helpful in providing a qualitative aspect to the pilot focus group results.

I will highlight the main concepts covered during the focus group, and attempt to tie them to themes identified by faculty, either in terms of being consistent or contrary. Of general note was the fact that students did recognize a level of entitled attitudes in some students, but it was abundantly clear that students felt that it is very context-dependent, both in terms of the nature of the course, but also the time of life in which a student is living. Another student proposed that, while entitlement may exist for some students at the beginning of a program, it would likely dissipate over time, because students who maintained an entitled attitude would be unsuccessful.

Thus, students would need to change their attitude or likely fail out for poor performance. The student provided evidence based on being enrolled in first year and upper year courses. The student claimed to notice a difference in the level of student commitment and professionalism,

with most of these issues worked out by the time they get to the last year of the program. One student made general reference to the fact that some students, by the time they get to College, will not have experienced the need for a competitive edge, because competition has been removed from children’s activities to make everyone feel like a winner.

In terms of the theme of students seeing themselves as customers, even students who otherwise reflected an allegiance to professionalism were able to come up with examples where they disagreed with a College or course policy, and expressed feelings that they shouldn’t have to comply if they didn’t understand or agree with the rationale for the policy. Though none of the students suggested that tuition should guarantee a credential or a specific outcome, they were clear to say that tuition should guarantee the chance that the student has access to appropriate services to be able to succeed. More than one student was explicit in tying tuition to their individual expectation of a level of service. One student gave the example that, because they are paying tuition, they expect that a professor would meet with them at a time other than stated office hours if the student is unavailable. So, it was clear that there was a strong expectation of good customer service. This is not unreasonable in and of itself, as students should rightly expect a certain level of service from both the academic and ancillary departments within the institution. However, this exposes the fact that students’ expectations need to be considered perhaps using the generic reasonable person test, in terms of which expectations are justifiable versus those that are unreasonable and/or not conducive to their learning or development.

A specific instance of customer service related to the question of whether it’s okay for the institution to make students uncomfortable in terms of the kinds of assignments given to them.

Some students felt hard pressed to agree that it’s okay for the College to make students uncomfortable, while other students were adamant that it was very important for students to be

put in uncomfortable situations because that replicates the real world. Other students felt that lack of comfort with a particular assignment should be accommodated. The other aspect of customer service related to when a student misses a class. In this case, some students agreed that, if the student had a good reason for missing a class, the professor should be willing to provide notes, showing a point of view dependent on context in terms of when a standard should apply. Even when it came to late submission of work, some students noted that, even in the real world, you can ask for leniency from a boss to submit something late and be able to do so without penalty, and in this case they are paying for a service and thus should be given similar leniency, in certain circumstances. Also related to customer service was the idea that students don’t want to be criticized in class because, according to a couple of student participants, students feel they have paid for the service. The feeling was that students were perhaps more sensitive. An interesting counterpoint to this is that faculty should be sensitive not only to personality types, such as whether a student is an introvert or an extrovert, but also be sensitive to different cultural norms and adjust their demeanour based on the specific student they are dealing with. Some students felt this was unrealistic and would unnecessarily complicate things when a more general standard of appropriate behaviour could be identified.

With respect to externalizing blame regarding lack of success, when students were asked about the extent to which the College might encourage or discourage entitled attitudes, they offered a range of theories. At the same time, some of the students agreed with the general point that some students blame their lack of success on the institution or others, when they should be taking responsibility for their own actions. Despite this assertion, a few students did wish to externalize some of the blame, saying they were lead to believe College would be “a big party”, particularly due to frosh activities, and that the College doesn’t prepare students for what’s

ahead. Some students disagreed with this point, arguing instead that frosh was about meeting people and networking. However, one student made mention of a wet t-shirt contest, which all students agreed was less about networking and more about partying. Despite this, one student vehemently opposed the idea that the College doesn’t prepare students, citing the vast amount of information that is shared and the resources provided. The student felt that it was up to students to access the information and resources as needed. This was an interesting perspective, considering that College officials are often wondering why students don’t access services, particularly wondering whether the information is visible enough. Another perspective that was offered was the fact that there is not enough consistency between classes. This drove some of the participants to assert that the College fails at providing a consistent experience because some professors provide a lot of guidance and particularly do a better job of providing a breakdown or preview of how the course will operate. This inconsistency extends to things like use of

Blackboard, and comfort with technology in the classroom. On the latter point, one participant talked about how confusing it was that some professors were very technologically friendly, even letting students use mobile technology in the classroom as part of the learning process, versus those who get angry if they even see a mobile device in class.

It was encouraging to see that students reflected a number of the themes identified by faculty, either by themselves validating that they have seen similar themes, or in terms of participants expressing opinions or attitudes that confirmed the faculty perspective. At the same time, the student focus group notably illustrated the extent to which students, even students who give the impression of being generally professional and dedicated, believe that what they are entitled to is often based on the specific circumstances or context in which they find themselves.

Full Administration of Student Entitlement survey

With the pilot testing completed, it was possible to move to the full administration of the

Student Entitlement (SE) survey with a sample of students from the diploma student population within the three academic schools (Business, Health, Media Studies) from which faculty participants and student focus group participants had been chosen. The questionnaire, consisting of the new Student Entitlement (SE) questions, the items created by Chowning and Campbell

(2009), and additional questions such as international/domestic status, program type (diploma, degree, etc.), semester of study, and, academic school was uploaded to fluidsurveys.com. In terms of program type, it was my original intention to survey all students in diploma programs, regardless of length; that is, including 3-year Advanced Diploma students. Unfortunately, it was not discovered until after the survey had been launched that the student list provided by the

Office of the Registrar only contained 2-year diploma students. Despite this, while most students who completed the survey were 2-year diploma students (see Figure 9 below), there was still a small percentage of students who responded who were in programs pursuing other types of credential. Out of the 6,522 students that were contacted (3,401 Business School students, 2,010

Health Sciences students, and 1,111 Media Studies students), 892 students, or 13.6%, completed the survey in full. Figures 5 through 11 below show the distribution of survey responses across the different demographic variables.

Do you identify as:

Gender Chart Percentage Count

Male 24.6% 219 Female 74.9% 668 Prefer not to say 0.6% 5 Total Responses 892 Figure 5- Survey Responses by Gender

Age Group Chart Percentage Count

18‐24 67.8% 605 25‐34 23.1% 206 35‐44 7.2% 64 45 or older 1.9% 17 Total Responses 892 Figure 6 - Survey Responses by age group

Educational Experience Chart Percentage Count

High School graduate 28.0% 250 Some College 35.0% 312 College Graduate 12.8% 114 Some University 6.7% 60 University Graduate 17.5% 156 Total Responses 892 Figure 7 - Survey responses by Educational Experience

International Student Chart Percentage Count Raw Total % of Total

Yes 15.2% 136 1004 13.55% No 84.8% 756 5518 13.70% Total Responses 892 6522 Figure 8 - International student status of respondents

Program Type Chart Percentage Count

2‐year Diploma program 96.7% 863 3‐year Diploma program 1.2% 11 Degree program 0.6% 5 Postgraduate certificate 0.2% 2 program Other 1.2% 11 Total Responses 892 Figure 9 - Respondents’ Program Type

Semester Chart Percentage Count

1 15.7% 140 2 42.8% 382 3 7.8% 70 4 32.1% 286 5 0.4% 4 6 0.8% 7 7 0.1% 1 8 0.2% 2 Total Responses 892 Figure 10 - Respondent’s Semester of Study

Academic School Chart Percentage Count Raw School Total Response Rate

School of Health Sciences 32.2% 287 2010 14.28% School of Media Studies and 15.8% 142 1111 12.78% Information Technology The Business School 52.0% 463 3401 13.61% Total Responses 892 6522 Figure 11 - Respondent’s Academic School.

Response rates While the survey received a relatively low response rate, the absolute number of 892 respondents (three were later removed for being outliers, using Mahalanobis distance values, as described below) was substantial. Consistent with the literature on survey response rates, responses from females were notably more frequent than males (Curtin et al 2000; Moore &

Tarnai, 2002; Singer et al 2000). School response rate was consistent with relative size of

Schools. Students were more often studying in semesters 2 and 4, which is consistent with the fact that semester 2 and 4 students are the largest cohort in the winter semester. International students also responded in proportion to their representation in the overall population of 2-year diploma students.

The full report of survey responses can be seen in Appendix G.

Chowning and Campbell (2009) analysis

To determine whether it would be appropriate to use the data from the sample population with respect to Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) Academic Entitlement (AE) construct,

principal components analysis was conducted on their 15 items only to determine if the factor composition would be similar to their results. Chowning and Campbell’s analysis resulted in a two factor solution, with the factors being Externalized Responsibility and the other being

Entitled Expectations. The principal components analysis conducted using the current study’s sample population resulted in a three factor model, as can be seen in Table 5, with one factor accounting for 31% of the variance, and the other two accounting for 10% and 8% respectively.

The item composition of the three factors can be found in Appendix H with items identified as

Externalized Responsibility or Entitled Expectations to identify Chowning and Campbell’s two factors. These results suggest that the concept of student entitlement in Ontario College students might differ from student entitlement measured in other populations, notably university populations. As a result, the Chowning and Campbell (2009) data were not used to support the external validity of the Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire. However, the analytical results for the SE questionnaire were compared to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets to assess the theoretical basis for the construct.

Table 5 - Total Variance output from Principal Components Analysis of Chowning and Campbell (2009) Academic Entitlement (AE) scale

Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 4.635 30.900 30.900 2 1.519 10.125 41.025 3 1.229 8.192 49.217 4 .929 6.193 55.410 5 .824 5.494 60.904 6 .806 5.373 66.277 7 .697 4.644 70.921 8 .658 4.387 75.307 9 .626 4.175 79.482 10 .608 4.050 83.532 11 .571 3.804 87.337 12 .529 3.525 90.861 13 .504 3.361 94.223 14 .478 3.189 97.412 15 .388 2.588 100.000

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of survey data based on 4-factor model of Student

entitlement

As mentioned above, the concept mapping portion of the study ultimately resulted in a 4-

factor model of student entitlement, with items identified forming the basis for survey questions

contained within the Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire. Using the results of the survey,

confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with AMOS based on a four-factor model of student

entitlement. Questionnaire items were assigned to each of the four model constructs based on

the concept maps. Figure 12 shows the four-factor model and the corresponding survey items. It

is important to note that, before confirmatory factor analysis, the data set was cleaned by

removing outliers using the Mahalanobis distance (Kopp et al., 2011) which identifies

“individuals who seemed to respond in ways indicative of [arbitrary] response sets (5,5,5,5…, or

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 6, 5, 4…), justifying their removal” (p.115). Three individuals were removed

on this basis, reducing the sample size for analysis to 889 participants. Figure 12 also shows the standardized beta coefficients for each survey item assigned to the four constructs. The coefficients for all items, except Q4, were substantial and above the .40 cut-off typically seen as a minimum (Cudeck and O’Dell, 1994, p. 475).

As discussed in Chapter Three, Byrne (2010) outlines statistics to be used when conducting confirmatory factory analysis, which include: model fit statistics, including

GFI/AGFI, NFI/RFI/CFI, RMSEA, and PCLOSE; assessment of normality, including skewness and kurtosis and standardized residuals. These will be discussed in turn. Table 6 outlines the relevant model-fit statistics, as well as the target value for each statistic, as recommended by

Byrne (2010, p. 74-84).

Figure 12 - CFA 4-Factor Model Table 6 - Model Fit Stats for 4-factor model CFA, with ideal ranges as provided by Byrne (2010)

Goodness of Fit Metric Target Value (Byrne, 2010) Result for 4-factor model of Student entitlement GFI Close to 1.0 .947 AGFI Close to 1.0 .927 NFI Close to .95 .892 RFI Close to .95 .868 CFI Close to .95 .917 RMSEA Less than 0.05 .056 PCLOSE Greater than 0.50 .44

As can be seen, the NFI, RFI, CFI and, in particular, the RMSEA and PCLOSE values from the

4-factor model do not fall within the target values for model fit thereby suggesting a poor fit for the four factor model..

Moving on to the assessment of normality, Table 7 shows the skewness and kurtosis values for each survey item.

Table 7- Assessment of Normality for 4-factor model CFA

Survey Item Skewness Kurtosis (n > 300, absolute (n > 300, absolute values should values should be less be less than 7.0) than 2.0) Q1 .430 -1.077 Q2 1.223 .430 Q3 1.095 .368 Q4 -1.936 3.619 Q5 .149 -1.210 Q6 1.163 .675 Q7 1.457 1.624 Q8 .120 -1.077 Q9 -.155 -1.017 Q10 -.471 -.759 Q11 -.039 -1.119 Q12 -.269 -1.018 Q13 .450 -.849 Q14 .853 .076 Q15 .974 .032 Q16 .667 -.339

Absolute values greater than 2 for skewness and greater than 7 for kurtosis would indicate a non-

normal multivariate distribution (Kopp et. 2011, p. 117). In terms of assessment of normality,

the 4-factor model falls within the acceptable ranges of both skewness and kurtosis, suggesting it

is acceptable to assume a normal distribution.

The last metric of importance in assessing whether a model is an appropriate description

of a construct is examining standardized residual values which, as mentioned in Chapter Three,

are of concern if they have an absolute value of 2.58 or higher. A chart with standardized residual covariances can be found at Appendix I. This chart reveals that there are ten (10) residual covariance values that are above the 2.58 threshold, forcing us to conclude there are a number of statistically significant discrepancies of note in terms of the covariance between 10 different variables.

Due to the less than ideal model fit statistics and the large number of statistically significant discrepancies in the standardized residual covariance matrix, it was concluded that the

4-factor model for the Student Entitlement (SE) construct was a poor fit.

Exploratory factor analysis of survey data based on 1-factor model of Student entitlement

In light of the four-factor model not being of good fit, it was necessary to look at other factor models to see if they had better model fit. The next model that was tested was the simplest, a single factor model, implying that the concept of student entitlement is essentially unidimensional. Kopp et al. (2011) also tested a single factor model, relying on the research of

Achachoso (2002), who had identified a 2-factor model. Kopp et al. note that Achachoso supported a 2-factor model, with one factor being Entitled Actions and the other being Entitled

Beliefs. Similar to the Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire created in this study, Kopp et al.’s model did not include Entitled Action items but rather focuses on the beliefs/expectations of the students. Therefore, it was suggested that Achachoso’s model supports the notion that entitled beliefs are unidimensional, and so testing a single factor model would confirm or deny this.

Further, because a single-factor model is the simplest possible model, if model fit is found then this model should be supported (Kopp et al., 2011, p. 113). Figure 13 shows the 1-factor model that was tested. Table 8 outlines the relevant model-fit statistics, as well as the target values for each statistic, as recommended by Byrne (2010, p. 74-84).

Table 8 - Model Fit Stats for 1-factor model EFA

Goodness of Fit Metric Target Value (Byrne, 2010) Result for 1-factor model of Student entitlement GFI Close to 1.0 .925 AGFI Close to 1.0 .901 NFI Close to .95 .844 RFI Close to .95 .819 CFI Close to .95 .869 RMSEA Less than 0.05 .069 PCLOSE Greater than 0.50 .000

The model-fit statistics in Table 8 for the 1-factor model suggest poor fit, with results in some

cases significantly worse than the 4-factor model.

Figure 13 - EFA 1 Factor Model

In terms of assessment of normality, Table 9 shows the skewness and kurtosis values for each question.

Table 9 - Assessment of Normality for 1-factor model EFA

Survey Item Skewness Kurtosis (n > 300, absolute values should (n > 300, absolute values should be less than 2.0) be less than 7.0) Q1 .430 -1.077 Q2 1.223 .430 Q3 1.095 .368 Q4 -1.936 3.619 Q5 .149 -1.210 Q6 1.163 .675 Q7 1.457 1.624 Q8 .120 -1.149 Q9 -.155 -1.017 Q10 -.471 -.759 Q11 -.039 -1.119 Q12 -.269 -1.018 Q13 .450 -.849 Q14 .853 .076 Q15 .974 .032 Q16 .667 -.339

Absolute values greater than 2 for skewness and greater than 7 for kurtosis would indicate a non-

normal multivariate distribution (Kopp et. 2011, p. 117). In terms of assessment of normality,

the 1-factor model falls within the acceptable ranges of both skewness and kurtosis, suggesting it

is acceptable to assume a normal distribution.

For the standardized residual values which are of concern if they have an absolute value

of 2.58 or higher, a chart with standardized residual covariances can be found at Appendix J, and

this chart reveals that there are a ten (10) residual covariance values that are above the 2.58

threshold, indicating there are a number of statistically significant discrepancies of note in terms of the covariance between 10 different variables.

Due to the less than ideal model fit stats, which were weaker than the 4-factor model, and the large number of statistically significant discrepancies in the standardized residual covariances, it was concluded that the 1-factor model for the Student Entitlement (SE) construct was a poor fit, suggesting that a unidimensional model of student entitlement could not be supported.

Principal Components Analysis to determine appropriate number of factors

Having found that the model associated with the faculty concept mapping exercise was of less than ideal fit, and that a unidimensional construct was also not supported, the survey data were analyzed using exploratory principal components analysis to identify factors for the Student

Entitlement (SE) construct. As can be seen in Table 10, principal components analysis identified

3 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for almost 47% of the total variance explained.

Table 10 - Total Variance output from Principal Components Analysis

Initial Eigenvalues Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 5.104 31.898 31.898 2 1.250 7.815 39.712 3 1.156 7.224 46.936 4 .934 5.836 52.772 5 .885 5.529 58.301 6 .821 5.133 63.434 7 .748 4.675 68.110 8 .682 4.265 72.375 9 .658 4.109 76.484 10 .638 3.989 80.473 11 .609 3.804 84.278 12 .557 3.483 87.761 13 .556 3.474 91.235 14 .510 3.187 94.422 15 .460 2.878 97.300 16 .432 2.700 100.000

Based on the factor loadings of each survey item on each factor, it was possible to

identify both a label for the factors as well as where each question would appropriately fit. Table

11 shows the factor composition for the 3-factor model of student entitlement, and loadings for

each question. The 3 factors are: “I am a customer, serve me”, which is labelled “Customer”;

“Problems are due to others, not me”, which is labelled “Others”; and, “Tuition equals

outcomes”, which is labelled “Tuition”. Two items were removed for loading highly on more than one factor (Bryant & Yarnold, 1995). The question, “It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned readings” loaded onto both the

“Customer” factor and the “Tuition” factor. The question, “I consider it disrespectful if a

professor is critical of the work I do” loaded onto both the “Others” factor and the “Tuition” factor. Table 12 shows the final survey items, and their corresponding themes.

Table 11 - Factor Loadings for 3-factor model

Component Question Customer Others Tuition 1. I should pass a course if I complete all course .118 -.030 .799 requirements, regardless of the quality of my work. 2. Paying tuition should mean I obtain a passing .125 .191 .741 grade. 3. I shouldn’t have to complete course requirements if I am uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations, .183 .428 .285 group work, field research) 4. Learning is an activity in which students need to .094 -.608 .239 participate in order to be successful. 5. It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned .420 .301 .402 readings. 6. I shouldn’t have to take notes because my professor should provide me with everything I need .293 .475 .320 to learn. 7. It is not my responsibility to be motivated to learn, .172 .568 .245 my professors need to teach me. 8. If I miss a class, the professor should provide me .549 .276 .145 with the information and materials that I missed. 9. My professor should reply to emails within a few .771 -.090 .071 hours. 10. I pay tuition and therefore I should get to have a .704 .191 .073 schedule that suits my needs. 11. I have a right to do make-up tests and .600 .297 .303 assignments I miss because I pay tuition. 12. If I am failing a class, the professor should give .462 .207 .399 me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass. 13. It is common for professors to give students a low .328 .555 .061 mark because they don’t like them. 14. I consider it disrespectful if a professor is critical .137 .478 .435 of the work I do. 15. I think college rules/academic policies should be .127 .585 .298 flexible and not apply to all students. 16. If I fail a class, it’s more likely because my professor didn’t teach well than because of my level .433 .524 .043 of effort.

While the principal components analysis produced a three-factor solution, it is clear that the construct of Student Entitlement is largely defined by one, “I am a customer, serve me” since this one factor accounts for the majority of the variance explained.

Table 12 - Student Entitlement (SE) scale items after principal components analysis

Factor Questions

I am a customer, serve me. 8. If I miss a class, the professor should provide me with the information and materials that I missed.

9. My professor should reply to emails within a few hours.

10. I pay tuition and therefore I should get to have a schedule that suits my needs.

11. I have a right to do make-up tests and assignments I miss because I pay tuition.

12. If I am failing a class, the professor should give me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass.

Problems are due to others 3. I shouldn’t have to complete course requirements if I am uncomfortable with them (e.g. Presentations, group work, field research)

4. Learning is an activity in which students need to participate in order to be successful. (Reverse)

6. I shouldn’t have to take notes because my professor should provide me with everything I need to learn.

7. It is not my responsibility to be motivated to learn, my professors need to teach me.

13. It is common for professors to give students a low mark because they don’t like them.

15. I think college rules/academic policies should be flexible and not apply to all students.

16. If I fail a class, it’s more likely because my professor didn’t teach well than because of my level of effort.

Tuition equals outcomes 1. I should pass a course if I complete all course requirements, regardless of the quality of my work.

2. Paying tuition should mean I obtain a passing grade.

Removed items 5. It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned readings.

14. I consider it disrespectful if a professor is critical of the work I do.

Based on the principal components analysis results, it was concluded that a 3-factor model might

describe student entitlement for students in one Ontario college. The next step was to confirm the

appropriateness of the 3-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis, with the hope that model fit statistics and the standard residual covariances were optimal as compared to the 4- factor model and 1-factor model previously tested.

Confirmatory factor analysis of survey data based on 3-factor model of Student entitlement

To test the results of the principal components analysis in terms of suggesting a 3-factor

model for the Student Entitlement (SE) construct, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted

with AMOS to assess model fit. Figure 14 shows the three-factor model and the corresponding

survey items. For model-fit statistics, Table 13 outlines the relevant statistics, as well as the

target values for each statistic, as recommended by Byrne (2010, p. 74-84).

Table 13 - Model Fit Stats for 3-factor model CFA

Goodness of Fit Metric Target Value (Byrne, 2010) Result for 3-factor model of Student entitlement GFI Close to 1.0 .958 AGFI Close to 1.0 .940 NFI Close to .95 .906

RFI Close to .95 .884 CFI Close to .95 .930 RMSEA Less than 0.05 .053 PCLOSE Greater than 0.50 .205

As can be seen in Table 13, the model-fit statistics for the 3-factor model suggest a modest fit.

Table 14 shows the model fit statistics for all three models, for ease of comparison.

Figure 14 - CFA 3-factor model

Table 14- Model Fit Statistics Comparison for 4-Factor, 1-Factor and 3-Factor models of Student entitlement

Goodness of Target Value 4 factor model 1 factor model 3 factor model Fit Metric (Byrne, 2010) GFI Close to 1.0 .947 .925 .958 AGFI Close to 1.0 .927 .901 .940 NFI Close to .95 .892 .844 .906 RFI Close to .95 .868 .819 .884 CFI Close to .95 .917 .869 .930 RMSEA Less than 0.05 .056 .069 .053 PCLOSE Greater than 0.50 .044 .000 .205

In comparison to the 4-factor model and the 1-factor model, the values of 3-factor model-fit

statistics, are closer to the desired values and support the idea that a 3-factor model describes the

Student Entitlement (SE) construct.

In terms of assessment of normality, Table 15 shows the skewness and kurtosis values for each question.

Table 15 - Assessment of Normality for 3-factor model CFA

Survey Item Skewness Kurtosis (n > 300, absolute values (n > 300, absolute values should be less than 2.0) should be less than 7.0) Q1 .430 -1.077 Q2 1.223 .430 Q3 1.095 .368 Q4 -1.936 3.619 Q6 1.163 .675 Q7 1.457 1.624 Q8 .120 -1.149 Q9 -.155 -1.017 Q10 -.471 -.759 Q11 -.039 -1.119 Q12 -.269 -1.018 Q13 .450 -.849 Q15 .974 .032 Q16 .667 -.339

Absolute values greater than 2 for skewness and greater than 7 for kurtosis would indicate a non- normal multivariate distribution (Kopp et. 2011, p. 117). In terms of assessment of normality, the 3-factor model falls within the acceptable ranges of both skewness and kurtosis, suggesting that the assumption of normality has not been violated.

For the standardized residual values, which are of concern if they have an absolute value of 2.58 or higher, a chart with standardized residual covariances can be found at Appendix K, and this chart reveals that there are five (5) residual covariance values that are above the 2.58 threshold, which is less than the ten (10) residual covariance values found with both the 4-factor and the 1-factor model.

Due to the 3-factor model having the best model fit statistics and the smallest number of statistically significant discrepancies in the standardized residual covariances, it was concluded that the 3-factor model of student entitlement was supported the most, demonstrating a modest fit.

3-factor Model compared to 4-factor model and Kopp et al.’s five facets

While the data analysis ultimately suggested a 3-factor model instead of the 4-factor model conceptualized with the assistance of faculty, conceptually the 3-factor model is still strong in terms of covering the breadth of student entitlement, including tying well to the five facets that Kopp et al. (2011) identified as being consistently identified in the literature. For ease of comparison, Table 16 provides a comparison between the original 4-factor model that resulted from the concept mapping exercise, the 3-factor model that was ultimately arrived at based on a combination of factor analyses, and Kopp et al.’s five facets.

Table 16 - Comparison between 4-factor model, 3 factor model and Kopp et al. (2011) Five Facets of Student entitlement

4-factor model 3-factor model Kopp et al.’s five facets I am a customer, serve me. I am a customer, serve me. Knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a Problems are due to others, Problems are due to others, minimum of exertion and not me. not me. discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’ Tuition equals outcomes Tuition equals outcomes Others will provide all of the Knowledge is a right that education that is necessary doesn’t require effort Problems in learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, rather than the student’s own shortcomings.

Students should have control over class policies.

Certain outcomes are deserved because the student pays tuition.

Internal reliability of factors within 3-factor Student Entitlement (SE) model

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated as a measure of internal reliability for each factor

derived from the exploratory principal components factor analysis and these are presented in

Table 17.

Table 17 - Cronbach’s Alpha calculations for 3-factor model, including number of items and percentage of variance explained by each factor

Factor Name No. of % of variance explained Cronbach’s Alpha

Items

I am a customer, 5 31.898 .731 serve me. Problems are due to 7 7.815 .629 others Tuition equals 2 7.224 .624 outcomes

Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) are most often cited with providing a rule-of-thumb that .70 would be considered “modest reliability” (p. 264-5), though there has been support for the idea that the recommended minimum for exploratory studies is .60 (Robinson, Shaver & Wrightman,

1991). Table 17 shows that two of the factors, “Problems are due to others” and “Tuition equals outcomes” fall below the .70 threshold, suggesting lower internal consistency in these factors than is desirable. However, the “I am a customer, serve me” factor exceeds the .70 threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein and also accounts for almost 32% of the variance in the principal components analysis, compared the other factors which are closer to 7-8%. The low value for “tuition equals outcomes” factor is not surprising as it consists of just two items.

In summary, the initial model identified from the concept mapping exercise was a 4- factor model. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that this model was of poor fit and did not adequately represent the survey results. Exploratory factor analysis was then undertaken to test a unidimensional model in order to accept or reject the simplest model for student entitlement.

Model-fit statistics for the 1-factor model also suggested that a unidimensional solution was not supported by the data. Principal components analysis suggested a 3-factor model, with the items from the fourth factor from the original conceptualization fitting well within the remaining three items. Two items were removed as a result of principal components analysis due to loading on more than one factor, resulting in a final total of 14 items across 3-factors for the Student

Entitlement (SE) model. The 3-factor model measured well in terms of skewness and kurtosis and as well as standardized residual covariances. Two of the factors from the model had a

Cronbach’s Alpha below the .70 rule of thumb for internal reliability. However, the remaining third factor scored above the .70 level and accounted for the majority of the variance within the model.

Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

Calculation of factor scores

To determine prevalence of student entitlement, based on student scores on the newly developed Student Entitlement (SE) questionnaire, it was first necessary to calculate overall scores for each factor. Calculating an individual respondent’ s score on an SE factor was achieved by first multiplying the loading for the factor item by their response to the item on the

1 to 7 Likert scale. This was done for each item within a factor, and then the values were added to produce a total factor score. Adding the total scores of all three factors produced an overall

Student Entitlement score. Table 18 presents the detailed calculations of each factor score, based on the factor loadings identified during principal components analysis.

Table 18 - Factor score calculation

Tuition = (.799*Q1) + (.741*Q2)

Others = (.524*Q16) + (.585*Q15) + (.555*Q13) + (.568*Q7) + (.475*Q6) + (.608*Inv_Q4) + (.428*Q3)

Customer = (.548*Q8) + (.771*Q9) + (.704*Q10) + (.600*Q11) + (.462*Q12)

Student Entitlement Score = Tuition + Others + Customer

Note: Inv_Q4 = (7 – Q4)

Once the factor scores and overall Student Entitlement score were calculated, they were added to

the data set for each respondent. Table 19 shows the descriptive statistics for the individual

factor scores.

Table 19 - Descriptive statistics for raw factor scores, n=889

Factor Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis I’m a customer, 12.96 3.79 -.17 -.36 serve me Problems are due 8.97 3.54 .79 .92 to others Tuition equals 4.57 2.36 .70 -.35 outcomes

Skewness and kurtosis were within acceptable ranges, consistent with analysis for skewness and kurtosis during confirmatory factor analysis.

Since each individual factor consisted of different numbers of questionnaire items, calculating absolute scores for each factor and summing these to create an overall Student

Entitlement score would assign a higher weighting to the “Customer” factor. As a result individual factor scores and an overall Student Entitlement score were calculated using standardized Z scores. Table 20 shows descriptive statistics for the standardized (Z) scores for each of the three Student Entitlement factors.

Table 20 - Descriptive statistics for standardized (Z) factor scores, n=889

Factor Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis I’m a 0 .032 -2.79a 1.0 -.24 customer, -.12

serve me Problems are 0 -.114 -2.22a 1.0 .74 1.24 due to others Tuition 0 -.157 -2.43a 1.0 .45 -.20 equals

outcomes a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Standardized factor scores were summed to create a standardized Student Entitlement score.

Table 21 shows the descriptive statistics for the standardized entitlement (Z-Entitlement) score.

Table 21 - Descriptive statistics for standardized entitlement (Z-Entitlement) scores, n=889

Factor Mean Median SD Range Skewness Kurtosis Z-Entitlement 0 -.13 1.73 -3.90 to 6.64 .46 .25

Categories to determine “prevalence” With the standardized entitlement (Z-Entitlement) scores calculated, it was then possible to create categories for student entitlement ranging from Very Low to Very High, using multiples of the standard deviation to create category cut-offs. Table 22 shows the categories created for the Student Entitlement (SE) scale.

Table 22 - Categories for student entitlement ranging from Very Low to Very High

Category Range

Very Low -3.90 to -3.47 (> -2 SD)

Low -3.46 to -1.74 (> -1 SD)

Somewhat Low -1.73 to 0.0 (-1SD to Mean )

Somewhat High 0.1 to 1.73 (Mean to +1 SD)

High 1.74 to 3.46 (> +1SD)

Very High 3.47 to 6.64 (> +2 SD)

Table 23 shows the distribution of the Z-Entitlement categories across the sample, and Figure 15

shows the same information in bar chart form. The bar chart shows that the distribution is almost

normal, which is consistent with skewness and kurtosis values addressed above. The results also show that 15.5% of respondents fall in the High or Very High category, which will speak to the question of whether student entitlement is prevalent within the sample. With almost normal distribution, and 68.3% of respondents sitting in the Somewhat High/Somewhat Low range, this

point will be hard to support. Further, to show that the normal distribution was not simply a

result of standardizing the scores, the distribution of entitlement scores using raw scores was examined, as shown in Table 24, and Figure 16 in bar chart form.

Table 23 - Distribution of Student Entitlement categories using Standardized (Z) Scores

Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Very Low (VL) 5 .6 .6 Low (L) 140 15.7 16.3 Somewhat Low (SL) 325 36.6 52.9 Somewhat High (SH) 281 31.6 84.5 High (H) 107 12.0 96.5 Very High (VH) 31 3.5 100.0 Total 889 100.0

Table 24 - Distribution of Student Entitlement Categories Using Raw Scores

Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Very Low (VL) 10 1.1 1.1 Low (L) 134 15.1 16.2 Somewhat Low (SL) 312 35.1 51.4 Somewhat High (SH) 298 33.5 84.9 High (H) 105 11.8 96.7 Very High (VH) 30 3.3 100.0 Total 889 100.0

Student entitlement ‐ Standardized (Z) scores 40.0 35.0 30.0 (%) 25.0 20.0 15.0 Percentage 10.0 5.0 .0 Very Low Low (L) Somewhat Somewhat High (H) Very High (VL) Low (SL) High (SH) (VH) Degree of Student entitlement

Figure 15 - Bar Chart of Z Entitlement Score Distribution

Student Entitlement ‐ Raw Scores 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 Percentage 10.0 5.0 0.0 Very Low Low Somewhat Somewhat High Very High Low High Degree of Student Entitlement

Figure 16- Bar Chart of Raw Entitlement Score Distribution

As can be seen by looking at either the tables or the bar charts, the distribution of entitlement scores is normal, whether looking at raw scores or standardized scores.

100

Student characteristics and student entitlement

To explore whether there were significant differences between subsets of the sample in terms of degree of student entitlement, group means were examined and compared. Means for gender, domestic/international status, Academic School, 1st year/2nd year, and age were

compared and assessed for significance of difference using 1-Way ANOVA. For age, the

categories of traditional (18-24) and non-traditional (25-45+) were used. Tables 25 and 26 show

descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for the two cases where the mean scores proved to be

significantly different. The corresponding label based on degree of entitlement, from Very Low

to Very High is also shown.

Table 25 - Z-Entitlement Score Means for Domestic/International status and 1-Way ANOVA results

Z –Ent Category Std. Student Type Mean N Deviation International -.29 136 L 1.66 Domestic .05 753 SL to SH 1.73 Total .00 889 1.73

Mean 1-Way ANOVA df Square F Sig.

Z Entitlement Score Between 1 14.033 4.697 .030 * Student Type Groups

Table 26 - Z-Entitlement Score Means for Age (Traditional versus Non-Traditional) and 1- Way ANOVA results

Z- Ent Category Std. Age Group Mean N Deviation Traditional .23 603 SH 1.71 Non-Traditional -.50 286 SL 1.66 Total .00 889 1.73

101

Mean 1-Way ANOVA df Square F Sig.

Z Entitlement Score Between Groups 1 107.12 37.16 .000 * Age Group

Consistent with the overall results, means by student characteristic rested consistently and quite tightly within the Somewhat Low/Somewhat High domain, with all mean values very close to the Z-score mean of zero. With such small differences, and variation in sample size, it could be argued that these variables had minimal impact on student entitlement scores. For example, looking at age group, the Traditional age group had a mean of .2391, which places this group in the Somewhat High category. Meanwhile, the Non-Traditional had a mean of -.5041, which places this group in the Somewhat Low category. This result was somewhat expected in light of the common assertion that the current generation is more entitled, and so the distribution of entitlement scores was examined with the Traditional category only, as can be seen in Table 27.

Table 27 - Distribution of Student Entitlement Categories For Traditional Age Group (18- 24)

Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Very Low (VL) 2 .3 .3 Low (L) 72 11.9 12.3 Somewhat Low (SL) 203 33.7 45.9 Somewhat High (SH) 216 35.8 81.8 High (H) 85 14.1 95.9 Very High (VH) 25 4.1 100.0 Total 603 100.0

As can be seen, 18.2% of respondents score in the High or Very High category when we look only at the Traditional age group, as compared with 15.5% when all ages are included. Though

102

not a large difference, it might be indicative of a generational characteristic in millennials that might not be present in other generations or be indicative of an external force that has uniquely affected the millennial generation, to be discussed in Chapter Five.

Other variables had similarly narrow differences, limiting the ability to draw dramatic conclusions about their impact. However, it was interesting to note that domestic students actually had a slightly higher mean for entitlement than International students, with the caveat that the domestic sample was significantly larger and the difference in the means was also very small. However, these differences speak to some of the issues identified by faculty during the faculty focus group, the results of which will be discussed next.

Research Question 5 – What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

Having established the prevalence of student entitlement at a GTA college, it is also important to consider the impact of student entitlement. Without such consideration, it is difficult to understand the significance of any level of prevalence of student entitlement, since it is unclear why it should matter to us as educators, or members of the overall society.

In order to a get a sense of the impact of student entitlement on faculty, the students themselves, and society at large, faculty were invited to a 2-hour focus group to share their perspectives. Themes from this discussion will be outlined below, in terms of the impact on the student, the faculty and society as a whole, as well as what, if anything the College might be doing to foster or encourage entitled behaviour.

103

Impact on students

Faculty suggested there was a clear impact of students with entitlement attitudes, the result being to interfere with the learning process. In terms of a lack of engagement, faculty saw entitlement as a force that would lower a student’s motivation toward, and ownership of, their education. Also, faculty were clear that education is very much a social endeavour, and the relationships between students and faculty or students with other students, might be eroded if there was a difference in motivation or interest. As well, education is about change, and entitled students might be blind to the need to change, especially if they are unable or unwilling to reflect on their own behaviours and attitudes. Lastly, faculty reflected a belief that entitled students have a difficult time coping when things don’t go their way or if they fail.

In terms of grades, there was some disagreement about whether entitled students would tend to get higher grades. Faculty suggested that, if entitled students do get higher grades it’s not because they have earned higher grades through hard work but rather through “grade grubbing”, based on the belief that they are above average, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Another issue identified by faculty was the Student Feedback Questionnaire process. The Student

Feedback Questionnaire (“SFQ”) is administered to all students in all courses each semester, giving students the opportunity to rate their professors on a number of different attributes/dynamics. Administrators are given aggregate reports on how each faculty member was rated by students, and can then choose to use them for formative or summative evaluation of faculty, including using them as a factor when considering faculty for full-time positions; using them to work with faculty to assist them with improving their practices; and used as the basis for termination or non-renewal of a contract. According to the faculty participants, the SFQ process

104

makes faculty scared to hold the line for fear of students giving them bad ratings, which they fear will result in discipline or termination/non-renewal.

The faculty group also believed that international students are generally more entitled than their domestic colleagues. This is interesting in light of the results of the analysis which actually saw a modestly higher mean for entitlement with domestic students. Two theories were put forth by faculty regarding why this might be. The first is that international students have different motivations for attending the College, as they are trying to gain entry to the country. In light of this, one faculty member posited whether this was truly entitlement or merely survival.

The other theory suggested was that international students are privileged, because they have the means to travel, live and study abroad.

In terms of the impact on students after they have graduated from College, the concern from faculty was that students would have learned to game the system. Interestingly, it was felt that this would be a short-lived deception, as they believed their “true selves” would be discovered ultimately. Lastly, faculty spoke of entitled students taking their self-serving attitudes into the workforce to the extent of not understanding the reality of their industry. For example, a nursing faculty member spoke of nursing students expecting to work Monday to

Friday from 10 to 5, when nursing is in fact a 24/7 industry in terms of when you might be expected to work a shift.

Impact on faculty

Another potential impact of student entitlement is on faculty members themselves.

Faculty talked about their frustration when they are genuinely interested in the subject matter and students seem to only be interested in getting grades. One faculty used the word “heartbreaking” to describe the difference between their enthusiasm and the attitudes of some of their students.

105

Faculty noted it was particularly frustrating when it was seen to be in stark contrast to values they espouse in terms of hard work, dedication and sacrifice. As a result, faculty talked about getting their backs up when seeing entitled actions and wanting to squash that kind of behaviour.

That being said, faculty also mentioned being stressed with students hounding them for good grades or a faster email response. To counteract students’ complaints or the pressure that they apply, faculty also talked about trying to proactively come up with practices or procedures that would put students on notice about certain standards or policies that they hadn’t had to resort to in the past. But faculty said that there are faculty, particularly part-time faculty, who feel pressure to succumb to students due to SFQ pressures or students complaining to the administration. Some faculty expressed feeling like they are on their own, without adequate support from the institution. A particularly stark example of this that was offered was the story of an administrator who changed a student’s grade without consulting the faculty member.

Impact on society as a whole

It was very clear to faculty that there could be a potentially significant impact on individuals or organizations in society with entitled students going into the workforce.

Particularly in fields serving vulnerable populations, but truly across the board, the concern was that students could do real harm, whether it be physical, emotional, financial, or otherwise. Of particular concern to faculty working in health-related professions was seeing students seemingly focus on themselves rather than their patients/clients. One faculty member was adamant in expressing the opinion that it was not a big leap to believe that an entitled student might turn into an unethical employee, which again speaks to potential harm to people and/or organizations.

106

What College might be doing to foster entitlement

A fair question to ask is whether students are coming to the College with a sense of entitlement exclusively due to personality or other external factors, or whether the College is, in some way, encouraging or fostering entitled attitudes? In terms of the College’s policies and practices, faculty shared the perspective that there was a general lack of coordination around any effort to deal with the “entitlement problem”. Instead, it is left to individual faculty who, as mentioned above, may be reluctant to stick their neck out for fear of poor SFQ results, complaints from students to senior administration, or general lack of support from direct managers. It was also thought that a perceived reduction in standards, both in terms of admission standards but also the lowering of the passing grade from 60 to 50, had caused students not to feel they have to work hard to succeed.

The other point that faculty addressed was the College’s marketing. In particular, the marketing campaign used by the subject was seen to espouse entitlement attitudes, as faculty interpreted it to mean that the College thinks it’s the best, regardless of whether this may be true or not. Faculty questioned whether it would be better to have messaging that supports a sense of community rather than appealing to the individual or reinforcing the “We’re the best” attitude.

Lastly, faculty said the institution could counteract its influence on student entitlement by refocusing its marketing, somehow removing the coercive impact that SFQs have had, and generally deal with its own dirty laundry in terms of a combination of practice and policies that faculty believe have resulted in greater entitlement in our student body.

107

Summary of Chapter Four

This chapter identified the faculty conceptualization of student entitlement as consisting of four factors, being 1. I am a customer, serve me (“Customer”); 2. Problems are due to others

(“Others”); 3. Tuition equals outcomes (“Tuition”); and 4. Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort (“Knowledge”). This conceptualization was refined and validated using confirmatory and exploratory principal components analysis and the model was reduced to three factors, having removed the Knowledge factor. The Customer factor accounted for most of the variance in the model, over 31%, compared to 7.8% and 7.2% for Others and Tuition, respectively. The model was found to be of modest fit, and the internal consistency of the Others and Tuition factors fell below the .70 threshold that is generally recommended (Nunnally &

Bernstein, 1994), however the Customer factor was well above this threshold while accounting for most of the variance. The distribution of entitlement scores was almost normal, with the

Traditional age group scoring higher than the non-traditional age group. The faculty focus groups addressed the impact of entitlement in terms of impact on the student, faculty and society at large. The student focus group confirmed that students have a level of expectation of service, though not necessarily unreasonably so.

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Five research questions have been identified for this study, which I reproduce here for the ease of the reader:

1. How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student

entitlement?

2. How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s

(2011) five facets of academic entitlement?

3. Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement

derived from faculty?

4. What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

5. What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

The results will be summarized below and then discussed according to each of these research questions in turn.

Summary of Results

This study has shown that the concept of student entitlement, which was conceptualized by faculty at a large Ontario College in the Greater Toronto Area, and whose conceptualization was refined and validated based on survey results from a sample of Ontario College students, is made up of three factors. The three factors are: 1. I am a customer, serve me (“Customer”); 2.

Problems are due to others (“Others”); and, 3. Tuition equals outcomes (“Tuition”). The

Customer factor accounted for most of the variance in the model, over 31%, compared to 7.8% and 7.2% for Others and Tuition, respectively. The model, analyzed using confirmatory factor

108 109 analysis, was found to be of modest fit, and the internal consistency of the Others and Tuition factors fell below the .70 threshold that is generally recommended (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), however the Customer factor was well above this threshold while accounting for most of the variance.

Standardized scores for the Student entitlement (SE) scale showed an almost normal distribution, with 15.5% of respondents falling in the High or Very High category, compared to

68.3% of respondents falling in the Somewhat Low to Somewhat High range. The traditional age group of 18-24 year olds scored significantly higher, which might be expected based on the suggestion that the current generation are more entitled than their older colleagues. This was also shown by isolating results for the traditional 18-24 age group and examining the distribution of scores. Isolating this group increased the percentage of respondents in the High or Very High category from 15.5% to 18.4%, suggesting that this age group may be presenting entitled attitudes more than their older peers. Also of note was the fact that the suggestion by faculty in the focus group that international students are more entitled than domestic students was not supported by the results, with domestic students scoring significantly higher on the SE scale.

Students who participated in the focus group supported the notion that some students are entitled and have unrealistic expectations, but also made it clear that their opinions on appropriate expectations are highly contextual.

Faculty focus group participants meanwhile identified the impact of student entitlement on students, faculty and the society at large. Student impact centred around interfering with the learning process, both by the student not engaging with the material but also by interfering with the faculty-student relationship, and/or student-to-student relationships. Grades were generally

110 perceived not to be higher for entitled students, but this was tempered by the view that entitled students might be more likely to grub for grades and wear the faculty down. The impact on the faculty was identified as being frustration and disappointment at the lack of willingness on the part of entitled students to engage in the material with comparable levels of enthusiasm as the faculty. Further, faculty described stress caused by entitled students making numerous complaints, or taking complaints to higher authorities within the organization. Faculty saw

Student Feedback Questionnaires, and the manner in which the institution has used them, in terms of putting pressure on faculty to be above average, as also contributing to faculty’s lack of willingness to push back on entitled students for fear of getting bad ratings and being disciplined or dismissed from the institution. Lastly, faculty described things the College is doing to potentially foster entitled attitudes; including, a marketing campaign that may reflect an entitled viewpoint; Student Feedback Questionnaire policies/practices, as described above; lowering passing grades from 60 to 50; and, lowering or altering admission requirements.

Research Question 1 – How do faculty at a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) college conceptualize student entitlement?

Faculty at a GTA college participating in a concept mapping exercise conceptualized student entitlement as being comprised of four factors; being, “I am a customer, serve me”,

“Tuition Equals Outcomes”; “Problems are due to others, not me”; and, “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort”. As discussed in Chapter Four, analysis based on survey results from a sample of diploma students at the same GTA college suggested a 3-factor model was the best fit, with the items from the factor “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort” fitting well into the remaining three factors. As well, the model fit statistics showed that the 3-factor model

111 had a modest fit, and the internal reliability analysis found that the Customer factor was internally consistent, but the Others and Tuition factors fell below the .70 threshold. The

Customer factor accounted for most of the variance in the sample, suggesting that it largely drives the entitled student’s behaviour. Though the analysis further refined the model suggested by the faculty during the concept mapping exercise, their conceptualization is well represented within the 3-factor model, which reinforces the suggestion by faculty that students see themselves as customers.

In Chapter Two, it was noted that student culture is often described as being consumer oriented (Delucchi & Korgen, 2002). Traditionally, customer service has revolved around the notion that the customer be satisfied and has the belief that the product or service has met their expectation (Turban, Lee, King & Chung, 2002, p. 87). Though education being conceptualized as a commodity is not new, with examples of institutions advertising to students or having

Marketing departments dating back over 100 years (Singleton-Jackson, J. A., Jackson, D. L., &

Reinhardt, J., 2010, p. 347), it is clear that the current Ontario College context involves a high degree of competition between institutions and the corresponding marketing that goes along with it, perhaps resulting in students seeing the institution as another enterprise vying for their business as a traditional customer, rather than an academic institution seeking students for a rigorous academic experience (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2010, p. 347). As well, with neoliberal theory influencing government policy on education for the last two decades, it is not surprising that students might see themselves as customers, since neoliberal theory suggests that’s exactly what they should be. The Customer factor being dominant is also consistent with other models proposed in the literature, which Kopp et al.’s (2011) summarized in their five facets for the theoretical basis for student entitlement. Kopp et al. discuss the student being a consumer, and

112 that the student believes they should have control over policies. Greenberger et al. (2008) developed a 15-item student entitlement scale that was treated as being part of a unidimensional construct, however items within the construct; such as “A professor should be willing to meet with me at a time that works for me, even if inconvenient for the professor” or “Professors have no right to be annoyed with me if I tend to come late to class or tend to leave early” point to a potential consumer orientation). Chowning and Campbell (2009) also did not identify consumerism or the student-as-customer as one of the factors in their scale, but instead identified the two factors of Externalized Responsibility and Entitled Expectations). Again, however, many of the items on both scales could arguably fit within the Customer factor, such as, “It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions”, which is in the Externalized Responsibility subscale; or, “I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in”, which is in the Entitled Expectations subscale.

Other factors identified both in the present study and in other studies in the literature, could arguably fit into the Customer factor. In the present study, two other factors that were identified were “Problems are due to others” and “Tuition equals outcomes”. If a student is under the impression that their education is just another commodity to be purchased from a commercial vendor, then the argument could be made that believing that problems are due to others, which fits well within the traditional customer model as noted above, could be part of the

Customer factor as well. Along the same lines, the “Tuition equals outcomes” concept might also fit in the Customer factor, speaking directly to what the student-customer believes the exchange of services for money is about. Recognizing that the principal components analysis identified three distinct factors, thematically the “Others” factor and the “Tuition” factor can

113 make sense within the notion of the student as customer. Future research could well be conducted on exploring the Customer model as the point of focus rather than student entitlement.

The Problem with the Student as Customer

As noted in Chapter Four above, the distribution of student entitlement across the survey sample was normal, with only 15.5% of respondents falling in the High/Very High range.

Further, it has been acknowledged that students have generally been customers of post-secondary institutions for most of their history (in terms of paying to attend), begging the question what, if anything has changed? Below I will discuss the issues of students seeing themselves primarily as customers, as well as discuss possible influences.

As mentioned above, traditional customer service models focus on customer satisfaction and the extent to which the customer’s expectations have been met (Turban et al., 2002, p.87). A cliché about customers, “The Customer is Always Right” is along the same lines. While students may view themselves as customers, the reality is that the traditional customer service model doesn’t work when we apply it to the academic context. For example, on its face, the principle that the customer is always right can’t work because students are being tested regularly on their knowledge (or absence thereof) of the material. Therefore, the logic of the customer always being right fails, because students are obviously not always right. Academic institutions would have very little integrity if the student’s satisfaction or expectations were taken into account when marking assignments or assigning grades. In other words, in education, the customer isn’t always right (Demetriou, 2008). In fact, a key part of the academic experience is for students to be shown their mistakes for the purpose of learning. So, it is of concern to the integrity of the core values of education, if we believe that we have shifted “to a model of education as business

114 and student as consumer” (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2010, p. 346). Another dynamic within the student as consumer model relates to the general mode by which a consumerist society views the goods and services with which it interacts. While higher education can be framed as a public good addressing the needs of learners, the marketization of higher education “results in a dominant mode of existence based on having” (Molesworth, Nixon and Scullion, 2009, p. 280).

In other words, an education is just another commodity to be purchased, ignoring the skills and effort that are required to achieve the end reward. Those focussed less on “having” and more on

“being” would be less focussed on the end result and more on the will and commitment needed to be successful in an educational program (Molesworth et al., 2009, p. 280).

The other interesting aspect of the student as customer is when we consider the fact that government policy, as discussed in Chapter Two, has deliberately attempted to cast education as a market, influenced by neoliberal theories which informed educational reforms over the last two decades. As posited above, is it possible that this deliberate emphasis on the marketization of education, including encouraging competition, which may fosters marketing initiatives which further emphasize the student as customer? As such, perhaps we must accept that governments reap what they sow when students have been increasingly treated as customers or have been drawn into an educational system that is structured like a market? On the one hand, if education is truly a market and students are truly customers, then can educational institutions reasonably expect anything from these customers in return? Macfarlane (2016) definitively states that students are customers and thus questions why student academic freedom and students’ rights are being undermined by the student engagement movement which demands that students show they they are learning (p. 1). In what he calls, “student performativity”, students are expected to show up, contribute in class, participate in group work, contribute via learning management systems or

115 other technology to demonstrate engagement, and use academic-integrity systems like Turnitin, which Macfarlane views as being an indicator that students are no longer trusted. Macfarlane goes on to argue that not only do these activities fly in the face of the students’ rights as customers, but also places an emphasis not on real learning but just on that which is visible and measurable (p. 2). Though an interesting argument, it may not take into account the limitation of the neoliberal model in terms of education, as discussed in Chapter Two. Marginson (2009), you will recall, discusses the limitations of market reform in higher education, stating that no higher education system fits the market template fully. Further, as discussed above, the customer model does not work fully either in that there are specific aspects of the traditional customer model that do not work. Put another way, as Marginson (2009) notes, the limits of market reform are at least partially set by “the intrinsic nature of higher education…” (p. 5). Further, he states that education “cannot be turned into profit-based markets in the full sense, at least not without dramatically reducing their scope, and hence reducing the economic and social value they create”

(p. 5). So, while government policy may have sown the seeds or the student-customer orientation, to the extent that such policies were informed by neoliberal theory, such policies were built upon a somewhat faulty foundation. Education cannot be pushed fully into the traditional concept of the market, as students are not widgets but complicated individuals who need to engage in complicated activities with a variety of potential perspectives and experiences that will inform their expectations.

Strategically using the Customer model

While it has been suggested that the Customer model is potentially harmful to the traditional values of education, (Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005) in a competitive environment institutions might be tempted to exploit the trend to aid in both recruitment and student retention

116 initiatives. But is there a way to do so without threatening these core values? Arguably, if efforts were focused on marketing and recruitment, and the students’ experience with dealing with various aspects in the College; including, the application process, the registration process, the use of services, etc., and not on changing the academic expectations that we set for our students, then perhaps this could be a positive strategy. In a competitive environment, which arguably the Ontario College system is, it is hard to ignore the idea that “student-customer satisfaction” directly correlates to larger enrolments. Happy students stay in school, so retention rates remain high. Happy students tell their…friends, so recruitment numbers are higher”

(Emery, Kramer and Tian, 2001, p. 2). Students validated this perspective during the focus group, as many of them spoke of the expectation of a level of service. While this expectation was often context-specific, it suggests that students do believe that a certain level of service is warranted, because they are customers and/or because they have paid tuition. While institutions may not be able to anticipate every student’s expectation, it is perhaps becoming imperative that an institution look at its practices and identify those practices suggested above, that might enhance the student experience, without giving up on core academic values. Students in the focus group gave the example of the use of Blackboard, the learning management system used in the College that was the focus of the present study. Students claimed to find it confusing when different faculty use Blackboard differently, or to different extents. This is a good example of something an institution might be able to address, in the form of minimum usage standards and/or published best practices, which might make the experience more consistent, without having a negative impact on academic rigour. The other aspect to consider is different orientations that can correspond to the customer model. As mentioned in Chapter Two, Schings

(2009) identifies two orientations that a customer can adopt, being the exchange orientation and

117 the service-dominant logic orientation, with the former orientation just being about an exchange of services, and the latter recognizing the customer and the business as being co-producers of value (p.1). So, if the student recognizes that, though they are paying for a service, that they are still required to expend a significant amount of effort to contribute to the success of the outcome of that service, perhaps the customer dynamic can be encapsulated to minimize its impact on core educational values. Lombardi (2007) put it another way, describing that the student, as customer, is entitled to an opportunity to achieve success, through a quality learning experience provided by faculty and the academic institution overall. However, if students believe that what they are paying for is realized success, and/or if the institution fosters this belief, then the goals of achievement and quality education can be damaged (p. 1). At the same time, in addition to things the institution may be doing to foster these attitudes, institutions have little or no control over the assumptions that students bring with them.

Fostering student entitlement and how to reverse the trend while also maintaining market share

Faculty in the focus group exercise did identify a number of ways in which they felt their institution had fostered entitled attitudes in students. Among these was the fact that the institution had adopted a brand strategy revolving around a self-aggrandizing tagline. Faculty interpreted this as meaning that the subject college sees itself as the best, which they believe suggested an entitled attitude being expressed by the institution. It was felt that by demonstrating entitlement in its marketing, the ollege was potentially subtly endorsing entitled attitudes. As mentioned above, the Ontario College system is extremely competitive, being a

“quasi-market” (Marginson, 2009) and so Colleges must ensure that their marketing both reflects values but also attracts students, and the argument by faculty, is that the college’s marketing

118 campaign does not reflect the values of the faculty or core values of higher education. Assuming

Colleges continue to use marketing efforts that focus on attracting students to the institution, rather than espousing core educational values, from the perspective of the student, when does the student make the transition from consumer to scholar? The student needs to recognize that, though they have behaved as a consumer in choosing which academic institution to attend, the student must now play “an active role in the ‘product’ performing as advertised” (Singleton-

Jackson et al., 2010., p. 348).

To help the student recognize their shift from consumer to scholar, academic institutions need to consider what they are telling students when they arrive. Are expectations clearly expressed once the student arrives, or do we merely assume that the student will understand what is expected of them? While of course individual professors will provide an outline and critical path for their courses, this may be too late. If we agree that marketing efforts will continue to treat students as consumers, due to the highly competitive market, then it is imperative for

Colleges to immediately address the shift from consumer to scholar when the students arrive.

Otherwise, the students may continue seeing themselves as customers, which as described above, can be incongruent with core educational values. Orientation sessions, perhaps, ought to explicitly address the values to which that the institution holds itself and its students, explicitly addressing the need for the student not to see themselves as traditional customers but as scholars.

Morrow (1994) questions the point in students entering an institution if they don’t accept the value of academic practices, arguing that there is little point in the student going to the expense and the trouble if they don’t. At the same time, educators must be critical of their own tendency to cling to traditional values for tradition’s sake rather than for meritorious objectives.

Especially if we believe that students today are different or are living in a different context, and

119 that they possess different educational expectations and requirements than generations that have come before. It will be incumbent on educators to continue to explore different pedagogies and learning style strategies and even new learning environments beyond the traditional classroom

(Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008).

What will continue to be a challenge is the fact that, though a brief interaction, students in the focus group clearly reflected that their expectations are complex, and very much tied to their belief about norms both at the macro level, in terms of their overall expectations for higher education, but also in individual circumstances at the course or faculty level that might affect their expectations.

Another source of fostered student entitlement is grade inflation. Assuming that it is true that students are getting higher grades than they used to be, this would speak directly to the concern that students are expecting higher grades for doing less. There is some evidence from elite institutions in the US that grade inflation may be an issue. An examination of grades at

Duke University saw 45% of students getting A’s. Along the same lines, Princeton University saw faculty voting to limit the number of A’s awarded to 35%, (Lippman et al., 2009). Though this evidence is from other jurisdictions and different academic contexts, it is consistent with the broader context of education being frames as a “quasi-market” (Marginson, 2009), As mentioned above, such inflation has a direct impact on students’ expectations, inflating their sense of the quality of their own work and downplaying the amount of work expected (Landrum, 1999).

Couple this with the concern of faculty around student feedback questionnaires and student complaints to administrators driving faculty behaviour, and you have a recipe where students expect higher grades, and then will use these tools to express their customer dissatisfaction. The

120 more that students have these expectations, the more likely it will be that faculty will feel pressure to “alter the traditional normative structure in the classroom to adhere more to student’s views” (Lippman et al., 2009, p. 199).

Externalized Responsibility

While it was argued above that the factor dealing with externalized responsibility could be a function of the dominant “Customer” factor that was identified in the model, with the student believing that, as customer, issues or problems with their education are the responsibility of faculty or the academic institution, the principal components analysis did identify the “Other” factor as being distinct from the ”Customer” factor, though accounting for much less of the variance and with the factor not meeting the rule of thumb of .70 in terms of internal consistency as recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Therefore, it should also be discussed as a separate though arguably related concept, that contributes to a student’s overall sense of entitlement. Lauermann and Karabenick (2011), in looking at the issue of responsibility in the educational context, define responsibility as “a sense of internal obligation and commitment to produce or prevent designated outcomes or that these outcomes should have been produced or prevented” (p. 135). While they note that responsibility is a highly dynamic construct, they did identify two key aspects. First, they noted that there is a distinction between internal (self- generated) responsibility and imposed responsibility (externally controlled). An example of this would be when a faculty member assigns work to a student. The student may feel accountable to complete the project, but may not be internally motivated to complete the project. The other aspect of Lauermann and Karabenick’s (2011) conceptualization of student responsibility is being manifested from both an individual’s disposition as well as from situational factors that influence or interact with one’s sense of responsibility (p. 136). This is consistent with what was

121 discussed above regarding the interaction between a student believing that “Problems are due to others” and the “Customer” factor, with the possibility suggested that the student believing they are customers might be the driving force behind why they might externalize responsibility.

Whether responsibility is truly its own separate factor or whether it is highly influenced by the

Customer factor, it is clear that students taking responsibility for their learning is extremely important and something that must continue to be encouraged, as not taking responsibility is an indication of “non-optimal functioning”, with the students instead blaming others for negative outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 267). Student in the focus group validated this externalized responsibility perspective, agreeing with the general point that some students blame their lack of success on the institution or others, when they should be taking responsibility for their own actions. Even more interesting was the fact that some students in the focus group demonstrated a desire to externalize blame, for their lack of engagement or professionalism, by saying they were lead to believe College would be “a big party”, based on the activities offered by the College’s student association. This might be something for institutions to consider, in terms of balancing the desire to engage students socially with the desire to introduce students to a rigorous academic program that does not view students as customers but rather as scholars.

Informing the Student Customer Perspective Students attending College have already had a significant amount of experience, both inside and outside of the educational realm, which informs their view of the world and their specific view of the norms and expectations within the postsecondary context. A discussion of some of these influences is presented below.

122

Self-Esteem Movement

As far back as the 1960s, psychologists began to look at education as a means to self- actualization, with some believing that education could be more than about imparting knowledge but also be about creating a climate in the classroom where students feel accepted. This could be accomplished by providing students with unconditional regard by “prizing the learner, prizing his feelings, his opinions and his person” (Rogers, 1969, p. 109). Taking this concept one step further, it was argued that the value of failure for learning or psychological development is a myth and that it can have “cancerous effects upon our thinking” (Combs, 1979, p. 125) and that it is important to create warm, supportive and accepting environments where students feel valued and cared for while also minimizing potential feelings of failure. Not surprisingly, it was found that at least some of these strategies were detrimental to learning, or to a student’s development.

For example, Borba and Borba (1979) advocated for the use of praise liberally, and praising students for almost any effort or achievement (p. 100), believing that “even a seemingly insignificant achievement is worth a positive comment” (p. 4). However, a number of studies have found that praise can have a number of negative effects; including, cultivating an inflated sense of competence (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger &Vohs, 2003); having negative effects on intrinsic motivation (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002); reducing task persistence and increasing performance anxiety; and creating anxiety and discouraging students from taking on challenges

(Brummelman, Thomaes, Orobio de Castro, Overbeek, & Bushman, 2014). While more recently there has been a backlash against the Self-Esteem movement, some mentioned above, it is still thriving when it comes to marginalized schoolchildren, who are found to be most at risk for low self-esteem (Twenge & Campbell, 2002). Considering the fact that the Ontario College system still has an active access agenda (Clark et. al 2009) and therefore arguably a higher proportion of

123 at-risk students than in the university context, then efforts to increase these students’ self-esteem in their elementary or secondary schooling may have had a detrimental effect and contributed to their sense of entitlement, if not acting as a magnifying effect to students’ entitlement and/or sense that they are a customer.

Students directly commented on this point, referring to the fact that some students will not have experienced the need for a competitive edge, since competition has been removed from children’s activities to make everyone feel like a winner. Considering the history of the Self-

Esteem movement and how far back its inception dates, it is interesting to note that students seem to have noticed. Faculty also spoke of students with entitled attitudes succeeding not because of engaging in rigorous competition, but rather by resorting to grade grubbing or other manipulative strategies in order to achieve grades to which they believe they are entitled.

Helicopter Parenting

As discussed, in Chapter Two, though students increasingly need to demonstrate autonomy to ultimately become independent adults who can stand on their own in the marketplace, much has been written about students whose parents’ level of involvement is not adjusted, referred to as “helicopter parenting” (Schiffin et al., 2014, p. 549). While this might be more understandable when students are in elementary school, students in high school and definitely post-secondary education can’t possibly be able to develop the needed autonomy and independence expected of them if their parents are too directly involved in their education.

Behaviours of helicopter parenting include speaking to college administrators on behalf of their children; tracking students’ progress on their schoolwork, and calling a professor when their son or daughter receives a low grade (Schiffrin et al., 2014). Taking a look at the factors that

124 contribute to student entitlement, helicopter parenting might serve to reinforce a student’s view that they are customers of the institution, as the paying parent may be the one driving that dynamic and belief, such as the example of calling a professor on behalf of their son or daughter because of a low grade. As well, it could reinforce the notion that the student is not personally responsible for their education, instead relying on their parents to fight their battles for them.

Lastly, it may reinforce the idea that the appropriate response to a negative outcome is always making complaints or “seeing what can be done”, when the reality is that negative consequences often need to be accepted, ideally after at least a moment of critical thinking and self-reflection.

High school experiences

It is natural, when considering the extent to which students are reflecting attitudes consistent with student entitlement, to consider to what extent prior educational experiences have influenced students’ view of postsecondary education. Kopp et al. (2011) suggest that the

“increase in AE in higher education seems to be related to students experiencing greater rewards for equivalent performance in K-12 education” (p. 106). Could this also be true in the context of

Ontario? Ontario has been able to brag about having one of the best school systems in the world, and recently this has been in large part due to the increase in the high school graduation rate from

68 to 84 per cent (Maharaj, 2015, p. 1; Government of Ontario, 2012). Marahaj (2015) argues that this was accomplished by Ontario changing its approach to education from providing a sorting function, with the goal of sorting the “smart children from those that are less so” (p.1), which doesn’t recognize that achievement can be tied not just to a lack of innate intelligence but also a lack of motivation. So, it was the goal of the Ontario government to unlock the potential of all students by giving schools more resources to deal with low-achieving students in the hope that early intervention would allow for students’ motivation and achievement to be increased.

125

Maharaj (2015) further argues that these approaches have resulted in a lowering of standards using the examples of credit recovery programs, which “allow students who have failed a course to only repeat expectations where they have been unsuccessful, rather than redoing the whole course” and credit rescue programs, which allow for individualized learning options for students undergoing personal difficulty or who are in danger of failing a course (Government of Ontario,

2012). Similar to the discussion on moving from an elite to universal system of higher education in the context of the Ontario Colleges, one should consider whether attempts to bridge gaps for students with vulnerabilities should automatically be seen as a reduction in standards. Accepting that the K-12 system is, by definition, universal education that is available to every child, and that our College system is meant to be accessible to a very broad segment of the student population, then the mere fact that more students are succeeding, at any particular level, can’t be seen as a lowering of standards but should instead be viewed as the system performing as it should, at least for the most part. As well, one must consider evidence that suggests that Ontario students are actually performing quite well. The Programme for International Student

Assessment (“PISA”) is an assessment of 15-year-old students and is the result of collaboration between member countries of the OECD. The purpose of the PISA is to assess skills that are seen as “key outcomes of the educational process”(Brochu, Deussing, Houme & Chuy, 2013, p.

9). In 2012, the most recent iteration of the PISA, Canada had 21,000 student participants, across 10 provinces. In mathematics, Canadian students performed at a very high level, with only nine countries performing better In terms of performance in reading and science, Canadian students again scored at a very high level, with only five countries outperforming Canadian students in Canada and seven outperforming Canadian students in science. Though Canadian students performed extremely well relative to other countries, areas of concern from the 2012

126

PISA include a decline in mathematics and a decline in science. (Brochu et al., 2013). So, while there is some evidence that Canada is slipping in certain areas, overall the PISA results suggest that Canada maintains one of the best educational systems amongst participating countries. This challenges the suggestions of Maharaj (2015) who suggests that Ontario increased its high school graduation rate by lowering standards. It is not necessary to focus, however, solely on standards or performance levels to suggest that students’ experience in high school may be setting their expectations of what will happen in post-secondary education at an inappropriate level. The starkest example of this is the extent to which pressure is often placed on teachers to artificially increase the grades of students from a failing grade to a passing grade, especially if the student is close to graduation (Maharaj, 2015, p.1). In a study of nearly 1000 high school teachers in

Durham conducted in 2007, 40% say that they feel principals push them to drop standards and

25% feel pressured not to fail students (Brown, 2007). So, to the extent that it is true that high school teachers are feeling pressure to push students along regardless of their performance, and that the new support options offered by the Government of Ontario have resulted in students being able to pass regardless of whether they submit work on time, whether their work is of good quality, or whether they felt a student was genuinely prepared for the next level of education, it is appropriate to consider whether these supports could very well contribute to a student’s expectation of the kinds of supports and accommodations would be available to them, contributing to a discrepancy of expectation between the students and the faculty.

Is Entitlement Narcissism? Deservingness?

In Chapter Two, it was discussed that entitlement has been used interchangeably with other terms, chief among them narcissism and deservingness. As such, it seems appropriate to

127 discuss to what extent the conceptualization of student entitlement in the present study relates to these two concepts.

Narcissism Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a disorder identified in the American Psychiatric

Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter “DSM”)

(American Psychological Association, 1984), is measured using the 40 item forced choice

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (“NPI”) (Campbell, et al., 2004). The NPI has an entitlement subscale, with the definition of entitlement being “unreasonable expectations of especially favorable [sic] treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations” (American

Psychological Association, 1984). Examples of items on the scale include “If I ruled the world it would be a better place” versus “The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me”; “I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve” versus “I will take my satisfactions as they come”; and “I have a strong will to power” versus “Power for its own sake doesn’t interest me”

(Campbell et al., 2004, p. 30). Looking at the definitions and the example items, while it is clear that both involve expectations, they diverge when we consider the automatic and power elements that are present in the NPI’s definition. The present study identified that the key factor of student entitlement was that students believe they are customers of the institution, with weaker factors relating to a belief that outcomes are tied to the payment of tuition and that problems in their education are due to others. Assuming that the customer factor is most dominant, it can be argued that entitled students’ expectations are driven by the belief that they are customers and not necessarily due to a belief that their expectations should be met automatically or even unreasonably. Further, the power a student might feel might not necessarily be because of a pathological or maladaptive thirst for power, but rather due to the power of being a customer.

128

All customers have power in terms of the power to choose where to spend their money. And this choice empowers a customer to at least attempt to get the seller to abide by their wishes, with the limitation being the willingness of the seller to comply or practical limitations that prevent the seller from complying. In terms of an increased sense of power, or an increase in entitlement, perhaps this is again a manifestation of the customer aspect of entitlement at work, as generally the customer has seen their power increase in a market where their views can be shared with the a broad subset of a seller’s customer base through the use of social media outlets like Twitter and

Facebook. This change of dynamics in the marketplace includes the fact that customers are now playing an “active role in creating and competing for value” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000, p.

79). With this increased power of the customer generally, and entitled students belief that they are customers of the institution, there is a strong argument that this is not narcissism but customers asserting perceived rights.

Deservingness

It was mentioned in Chapter Two that entitlement and deservingness are similar terms that have been used in different ways by various researchers. And though there has been an attempt to separate the two, the common understanding of the terms does not lend themselves to representing wholly different concepts. Ultimately, it was suggested that student entitlement could be defined, encompassing both entitlement and deservingness, as students believing their actions have made them deserving of something, based on their perception of social norms of entitlement. This definition fits well student entitlement as conceptualized in the present study, as the social norm in this context is the Customer factor that was identified to be central to the concept. As discussed above, the customer dynamic comes with many expectations of service and perceived norms, which could lead a student to believing they are deserving of a particular

129 outcome or level of service from their faculty or the academic institution. Achachoso (2002) also examined the issue of entitlement and deservingness, cautiously suggesting that entitlement and deservingness might be separate concepts. This suggestion was based on an examination of the difference between earning an outcome (deservingness) and meriting an outcome based on personal attributes (entitlement). In the academic realm, an example of this would be a student believing they are deserving of a grade by working hard versus believing a grade is merited due to a feeling of superiority over others. This distinction is already laboured, however, as all students, even with a feeling of superiority, would understand the basic need to exert some effort to earn a grade. But assuming that we accept this distinction, let us look at how this might be measured. Achachoso (2002) looked at effort regulation, how a student managed his or her effort in a class, and found that lack of effort regulation was negatively correlated to entitlement actions, and feelings of superiority would have an increasing effect on entitlement actions.

However, Achachoso acknowledges that these constructs “only approximate the constructs being considered in the theoretical debate” (p. 99) and that more research was needed to disentangle deservingness and entitlement. Further, it was conceded that there would be a need for more clarity around a distinction between the two, as there is no common agreement on this issue.

Another point to consider is whether the two concepts are not distinct at all, but rather representing the same concept or representing parts of a larger concept. When considering the conceptualization of entitlement in the present study, it fits nicely to describe student entitlement as the belief that a student is deserving of a certain outcome or response, based on their perceived norms of entitlement for the customer-institution relationship.

130

Research Question 2 – How does this conceptualization of entitlement map to Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich’s (2011), five facets of the theoretical basis of academic entitlement?

Kopp et al. – Breadth of the construct or overlap?

To assess the extent to which the four themes identified during the concept mapping part of the study were consistent with or distinct from the research to date, they were compared with the five facets identified by Kopp et al. (2011). As was mentioned in Chapter 3, clusters identified in the concept mapping exercise that conceptually corresponded to the five facets were so named for ease of comparison, while other factors did not line up as directly. One criticism of the five facets suggested by Kopp et al. (2011) is the overlap across the facets. While they claimed to have covered “the breadth of the construct” (p.112), it is possible to argue that some of the facets relate to the same overriding factor. Comparing the facets “Others will provide all the education that is necessary” and the facet “Problems in learning are due to the inadequacies of the teacher, the course, or the system, rather than to the student’s own shortcomings” (p. 112), it could be argued that these are simply two side of the same coin, because if others will provide all the education that is necessary, than logically problems in learning would be due to others, i.e., the teacher, the course, or the system. Further, if these two facets are accepted, then this would speak to the exertion and discomfort aspect of the “Knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’” facet.

Therefore, I would argue that Kopp et al.’s facets could be distilled into four concepts: Students see themselves as consumers; Problems with learning are due to others (because knowledge is a right); certain outcomes are deserved because the student pays tuition; and, the student should have control over class policies.

131

Control over class policies – Power element

For the control over class policies facet, while some of the items identified in the Student

Entitlement (SE) survey speak to the student’s desire to have class policies meet their expectations as customer, and this could suggest a level of control, the overlap in the items was not entirely consistent. In the present study, items that might fit into this facet tended to be more about the students expectation of what should happen under certain conditions, such as believing that a professor should provide the student with material if they have missed a class or having the right to do make-up tests or assignments if they are missed. While this was consistent with some of the items in Kopp et al.’s (2011) student entitlement questionnaire, other items in Kopp et al.’s scale under this factor speak to a level of control not mentioned by faculty in the present study, such as having input into how classes are taught or being in the best position to know what good teaching is. While the overlap in the items suggests a consistency in terms of the notion that students want a certain level of service, which could be attributed to the Customer factor, there may be an element of power in Kopp et al’s facets that may not.

Practical and theoretical basis for the construct

The strong correlation to Kopp et al.’s (2011) five facets of the theoretical basis for student entitlement is encouraging in that the model in the present study originated from the faculty perspectives that were taken during the concept mapping portion of the study, providing a real-world, practical basis to the theoretical underpinnings of the construct. To have such an honest process of developing a conceptualization be supported by the theoretical basis for the concept in the literature is encouraging in suggesting that there is consensus around the existence of student entitlement. At the same time, it is interesting that in the present study, which was conducted in a different context that that of the previous research represented by Kopp et al.’s

132 five facets as well as their own construct, produced a slightly different version of the concept, with the Customer factor being so dominant in terms of explaining the variance in the construct.

Perhaps this suggests that the Ontario College system, and/or the broader educational system in

Ontario, is dealing with a context-specific version of student entitlement, which is the result of specific forces at play in the system.

Research Question 3 – Do students in an Ontario college validate the conceptualization of student entitlement derived from faculty?

The 3-factor model

Though faculty originally came up with a four-factor model of entitlement, factor analysis was conducted based on the survey results from the new student entitlement questionnaire, and it was determined that a 3-factor model had the best fit, with the three factors being: “I am a Customer, Serve Me”; “Problems are Due to Others”; and “Tuition Equals

Outcomes”. In moving from the 4-factor model to the 3 factor model, the factor “Knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort” was removed. As discussed above, it can be argued that the factor “Problems are due to others, not me” is conceptually related in that, if knowledge is a right that doesn’t require effort on the part of the student, logically any problem with the student’s experience would have to be someone else’s fault. This was supported by the results of the principal components analysis as 3 out of the 4 items under Kopp’s “Knowledge is a right” factor loaded reasonably well on the Problems are due to others factor. So, the 3-factor model addresses all five facets when you take into account the overlap in the facets as described above.

The customer element is present in the factors, as is the externalization of locus of control and the relationship between tuition and outcomes. In the case of externalization of locus of control and blaming others for problems, Kopp’s et al.’s five facets address this point across three

133 factors. This assumes an acceptance of the line of thinking that “Knowledge is a right that should be delivered with a minimum of exertion and discomfort on the part of the ‘consumer’” can be considered related to the notion that problems are due to others. And, as mentioned above, the

Kopp et al. (2011) facet “Students should have control over class policies” could be encapsulated in the “I am a customer, serve me” theme, as some of the items within this theme speak to the concept of more control over class policies, though it is not clear if there is a separate power element in Kopp et al’s factors that might be separate than the power tied to being a customer.

Other Models

Chowning and Campbell (2009)

In terms of other models in the literature, Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) model was a two-factor model, with the two factors being Externalized Responsibility and Entitled

Expectations (p. 985). As mentioned above, when principal components analysis was conducted on the Chowning and Campbell model, using the data from the present study, the two factor model was not supported, and instead a three factor model resulted. It was therefore determined that the Chowning and Campbell (2009) model was not useful in externally validating the newly created Student Entitlement (SE) scale, with the suggestion that perhaps this was due to the difference in context between the Chowning and Campbell model, which was created using university level students from Oklahoma, versus the model that was created in the present study with Ontario College diploma students. That being said, there is overlap between factors, with both models having a factor that relates to externalized responsibility. Further, both factors in

Chowning and Campbell’s (2009) scale have items that would fit well into the Customer factor in the Student Entitlement scale. So, while the models are not the same in terms of their

134 structure, and though the Chowning and Campbell model did not seem to fit well in the context of the present study, it is clear that there is some affinity in terms of some of the items that make up student/academic entitlement.

Achachoso (2002)

Another model reviewed was that of Achachoso (2002). The scale developed by

Achachoso’s 12 item Academic Entitlement Scale (AES) was comprised of two factors,

Entitlement Beliefs and Entitlement Actions (p. 45). The Entitlement Actions factor consists entirely of statements around whether a student would confront an instructor about expectations that had not been met. This was interesting in that, other models such as the model in the present study, and the models of both Chowning and Campbell (2009) and Kopp et al. (2011), refer more to attitudes or beliefs that the student has, and not so much about whether the student would raise the issue or not. What strikes me is that this factor seems to be measuring whether a student is assertive or not, rather than whether they hold a particular belief. Achachoso (2002), in the discussion of their results, noted that the model might only be adequate because, among other things, “students may or may not believe they have the authority to question a professor”

(p. 93), which was tied to the level of assertiveness of the student. While Achachoso (2002) did create the pool of items based on interviews with instructors, Kopp et al. (2011) took note of the fact that it was not clear how Achachoso linked the review of the literature to the model that was ultimately created. Put another way, Kopp et al. raised serious questions about whether

Achachoso’s (2002) items “were written to cover the breadth of AE or just particular dimensions of AE” (p. 108). This would perhaps imply that Achachoso failed to ensure that the model created in their study mapped to the theoretical basis for academic entitlement. That being said, some items under Achachoso’s Entitlement beliefs section would fit well into the model in the

135 present study, both in terms of the “Customer” factor and the “Problems Are Due to Others” factor, addressing, such as “I shouldn’t have to think too hard to learn that material for a class” or

“When I get a bad grade it is because the instructor gave it to me” (p. 120). However, other items moved away from the theoretical basis for academic entitlement as put forth by Kopp et al.

(2011) and arguably reinforced by the model in the present study, by speaking to items that were less about entitlement and more about negative ways a student might behave in response to certain situations. For example, one question states “It’s all right to lie to an instructor to get the grade I deserve” (Achachoso, 2002, p. 120). This deviates from the notion that entitlement is about an expectation or a belief about deserving, and instead adds a moral or ethical element.

While, of course, student behaviours and motivations are related to their moral development to be sure (Pascarella & Teranzini, 2005, p. 42-44), it is not clear how, strictly speaking, these moral variables speak directly to the issue of student entitlement, particularly when other models have not included such items.

Greenberger et al. (2008)

Greenberger et al. (2008) developed a 15-item Academic Entitlement (AE) scale, and were silent on how the scale was developed. Further, no factor analysis was conducted to determine the latent variables that describe the construct, but rather the results were presented in terms of the percentage of respondents who endorsed each item. As well, participants were also asked to complete other personality measures, and inter-correlations were reported between the new AE scale and these other measures. Greenberger et al. found nonsignificant positive correlations between AE and “work orientation” and “narcissism”, though in the very next line they talk about a moderate overlap between academic entitlement and narcissism (p. 1197).

Greenberger et al. seem to give credence to the conclusions by Twenge (2006) regarding the

136 increase in narcissism over time, despite the criticisms mentioned above regarding flawed methodologies in terms of assembling convenience samples and the general criticism of comparing generations so liberally. This influence resulted in Greenberger et al. including narcissism as part of their study, without conducting the kind of analysis recommended by Kopp et al. (2011) in terms of a strong program or construct validity. As such, while comparisons to other measures are interesting, it is hard to know to what they are being compared since the authors failed to cover the breadth of the construct. That being said, the items in the scale created by Greenberger et al. are all about student expectations in terms of what a professor should do or not do, and so most could fit into the “Customer” factor, such as the item

“Professors who won’t let me take an exam at a different time because of my personal plans are too strict”, while only one item, “Teachers often give me lower grades” would fit in the

“Problems are Due to Others” factor. Despite these similarities, without further analysis on the

Academic Entitlement scale created by Greenberger et al., and with no information on how the scale was created, further comparisons to the model in the present study are not possible.

Singleton-Jackson et al. (2011)

Singleton-Jackson et al. (2011) created an 11-item scale based on student focus group comments, and found that a four-factor solution had the most promise. The four factors are

Accommodation, Reward for Effort, Control and Product Value. The first factor,

Accommodation, contains items “querying how students would feel if a professor didn’t respond quickly to messages or failed to accommodate the student in some way” (Jackson et al, 2011, p.

59). While the label chosen was “accommodation”, Jackson et al. (2011) note that this factor could be related to the Personal Responsibility factor identified by Chowning and Campbell

(2009) (p. 59). This was also identified by Achachoso (2002), Kopp et al. (2011) as well as in

137 the present study, as being a factor of academic/student entitlement. The Reward for Effort factor relates to deserving a reward based on effort expended rather than actual academic achievement. The Control factor measures “the extent to which the educational experience should be tailored to individual needs” (p. 59), and the Product Value factor, which “contains items dealing with whether students see themselves as customers and whether they feel the purpose of their university degree is to obtain a job when finished” (p. 59). Again, it is hard to tell to what extent the authors covered the breadth of the concept, as has been raised by Kopp et al. (2011). That being said, the factors identified do show conceptual overlap between the present study as well as other studies discussed above. The Accommodation factor, though perhaps named confusingly, can be tied to the externalized responsibility factor or items found in other studies. The Reward for Effort, Control and Product Value factors could arguably be tied to the

Customer factor in the present study and factors or items related to student as consumer in other studies, as discussed above. The Control factor also matches well with the “Students should have control over class policies” factor from the measure created by Kopp et al. (2011), which has been argued to also relate to the Customer factor, based on the extent to which a student would believe that a customer should control the policies of the institution/service provider.

Wasielski et al. (2014)

Wasielski et al. (2014) created an academic entitlement model by initially generating a pool of 125 statements that reflect academic entitlement attitudes. After reviewing the literature on academic entitlement, and summarizing the definitions of academic entitlement in the literature, Wasielski et al. state that the definition to date “holds promise, and incorporates many common-sense elements of AE although we propose an additional element: narcissism. Similar to Greenberger et al. (2008), Wasielki et al. (2014) rely on the research of Twenge (2006) in

138 terms of the conclusion that narcissism has increased among college students. They also talk about the relationship between entitlement and the Narcissistic Personality Inventor (NPI). As was discussed in Chapter Three, while the NPI does have an entitlement subscale, the subscale was never validated on its own measure, and the power elements of narcissism found within the

NPI is inconsistent with many of the academic entitlement models reviewed, and also with the model developed in the present study. The one exception to this relates to the Customer factor in the present study and the consumer/customer factors/items in other models, as discussed above, where a sense of power may flow from the fact that the student believes they are a customer.

Tying narcissism to entitlement also negates the context-specific nature of entitlement as discussed above. The bias inherent in deciding that narcissism is a part of academic entitlement without a rigorous analytical program for construct validity makes it difficult to compare the model created by Wasielski et al. (2014). For example, with no information provided on the source of the statements that comprised the initial survey created, presumably these were assembled by the researchers themselves. What resulted was a 2 factor model, with one factor being academic narcissism and the other being academic outcome (p. 446). However, when you review the items under both factors, they again speak to expectations about the level of service a student expects, such as “Students should be allowed to take exams when it’s convenient for them”, or about externalized responsibility such as “Everything should be discussed in class; I shouldn’t have to figure out material in the book” (p. 446). Without a clear source of the statements, and with the items not necessarily being clearly reflecting narcissistic tendencies but rather academic entitlement behaviours/attitudes as discussed in the literature, it can be argued that the narcissism element in the Wasielski et al. (2014) model is somewhat contrived. In their discussion, they note that they “proposed adding narcissism to the existing conceptualizations of

139

AE”, and then they conclude the thought by stating “our analyses suggest that narcissistic characteristics underlie attitudes and behaviours of AE”. If this were to be accepted, most of the models for academic entitlement would also reflect narcissistic characteristics, but this has not been supported by the authors of these models, nor by the model in the present study. The connection between narcissism and academic entitlement, while interesting, has not been properly validated to date.

Student Perspectives on Student Entitlement

In terms of student’s perspectives on student entitlement, it was interesting to note that students expressed a belief that student entitlement would dissipate over time, since it would be unlikely that a student would be able to be successful exhibiting entitled attitudes. This was in stark contrast to the faculty perspective that raised the question of whether entitled students could game the system by acting the part of the conscientious student, even though they genuinely feel entitled to certain levels of service or support. Also, if we tie to this point to the question of whether the College is fostering entitled attitudes, it could be argued that entitlement would not dissipate but actually might increase over time. However, the survey data did not support this point, since the differences between different years of study was not found to be significant when a 1-way ANOVA was conducted across year of study. More important was the fact that students validated that student entitlement exists, both in terms of describing having seen such attitudes in other students, but also by talking about their own expectations regarding what level of service they expect and what they believe their tuition buys them.

140

Research Question 4 – What is the prevalence of student entitlement in a GTA college?

The Epidemic has not been proven

As was discussed in Chapter Two, it has been argued that entitlement has increased over time (Twenge, 2006; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008a; Twenge, Konrath,

Foster, Campbell & Bushman, 2008b; and Twenge, 2009) while others have argued that these claims are overblown (Trzesniewski, Donnellan & Robins, 2008a; Trzesniewski, Donnellan &

Robins, 2008b; and Donnellan, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2009). Twenge & Campbell (2009) titled their book on the topic of entitlement/narcissism (they use the terms interchangeably), The

Narcissism Epidemic. The present study does not support the notion that entitlement is an epidemic, however. Only 15% of survey respondents were found to be in the High or Very High categories of the SE scale, and 68% were in the Somewhat Low to Somewhat High categories.

While entitlement and a view of the student as customer is concerning, the fact is that the data does not support the notion of an epidemic by any means, at least in the sample captured by this study. Further, students’ entitlement has been shown to be largely driven by their view that they are customers. Arguably, if institutions could address this tendency both in terms of their marketing, but also in terms of their communication with students once they arrive, to assist the transition from consumer to scholar, it is possible that the trend could be further reversed or at least minimized.

In light of the difficulty of comparing generations, and the recurring theme of one generation looking at the one that comes next and complaining about their attitudes and personality characteristics, it is somewhat inexcusable for a researcher to make such broad statements, particularly when the only way to achieve it is by awkwardly assembling studies using convenience samples, which are specifically not designed to make generalizations about a

141 population. While this assembly will increase the overall size of samples, it does not solve the inferential limitations of convenience sampling (Donnellan & Trzesniewski, 2009, p. 777).

In the present study, it was found that students in the Traditional age group (18-24) scored slightly higher on the AE scale, with a mean in the Somewhat High category, with the

Non-Traditional age group scoring in the Somewhat Low category. However, this represents a very small difference as compared to the standard deviation (.265 versus SD of 1.73), limiting the ability to conclude that there is a dramatic effect based on age. As was mentioned above, when we control for age and only look at respondents in the Traditional age group, the percentage of respondents in the High and Very High categories increases from 15.5% to 18.4%.

However, this is not suggested as being an endorsement of the Narcissism Epidemic but rather that students in this age group may have been subject to a variety of forces that have driven academic entitled attitudes.

Despite the perspective that claims of an entitlement academic are grossly overstated, while the numbers of students scoring high on entitlement was low, consistent with my own experience and that of other researchers (Lippmann, Bulanda, & Wagenaar, 2009), it is important to acknowledge that these small groups of students can require a greater proportion of our time and energy than their non-entitled colleagues. This is important to consider because, though there may not be an epidemic, the impact of this small group can still be profound in terms of its effect on the resources of an institution and the morale of faculty and administrators. For example, if we consider a typical College class of 40 students and assume that the students in the class exhibit student entitlement to the same proportions as the distribution in this study, 15.5% of these students will be highly or very highly entitled, which represents six students. If we use the 18.4% from the Traditional age group, this increases to seven students. Six or seven students

142 can occupy a lot of a professors time and multiply this by the number of sections in a program, academic school or the College as a whole, and you can see that, though not an epidemic, it can drain a lot of resources and, as faculty suggested, morale and job satisfaction. Further, if faculty believe that student entitlement is indeed on the rise, whether it has or not, there is a rationale for future qualitative research with faculty about their perceptions, as well as looking at valid ways of attempting to answer the question.

Research Question 5 – What is the impact of entitlement behaviour from the faculty perspective?

In talking to faculty about the impact of student entitlement, it was clear that there was a strong belief that it could have significant impact on the students, the faculty and society as a whole. Though the present study does not support the epidemic argued by some authors, there are still a significant number of students who scored high on the Student Entitlement (SE) scale, and who could have real impact. Also, because students in the Traditional age group (18-24) had a higher average SE score than the overall sample, it is also important to what extent Millenials are more entitled than previous generations. While this may sound like an endorsement of the

Generation Me position, it is instead recognition that the current generation of students in the

Ontario College system may be experiencing forces unlike previous generations which may be contributing to a greater sense of student entitlement, and specifically the Customer aspect of student entitlement. As has been argued above, this may have many elements, including the self- esteem movement, the recent trend of helicopter parenting, and recent developments in Ontario

High School standards.

Regardless of the reasons, the concern is the impact that student entitlement will have, particularly when you consider the impact described by faculty in terms of the impact on

143 learning on the part of students. This can have an impact not only on the student in terms of their reaching their career aspirations, but also on the colleagues, customers, and clients that the student may encounter once they graduate who may receive a substandard level of service based on the student’s failure to grasp key concepts or master key skills. When you consider the various industries in which students can enter upon College graduation, including health-related industries, public safety, and financial industries, to name just a few, it is clear that students who possess entitled attitudes could have real impact.

Beyond the student, the faculty also reported the impact student entitlement has on them, both in terms of their level of satisfaction with their job but also in terms of how the institution supports them in dealing with this issue. Because student entitlement is about the students’ expectations and more specifically about their expectations being discordant with that of the faculty, it is not surprising that faculty found student entitlement behaviours to be so frustrating.

But it is more than just a difference of expectation; it is a difference of expectation that reflects key values. Faculty believe that students should have the attitude of being privileged to attend the institution, of wanting to work as hard as they can to demonstrate their value and their learning, so that students can then achieve the honour of graduating and having an opportunity to enter the workforce. When you compare this to a belief on the part of an entitled student, perhaps at its worst, that they: have been sought after as a customer; they have chosen to give their business to the institution as a customer; they should be treated as a customer while frequenting the business, and they should receive an outcome as expected with a job coming right after that, then you can see the difference in values at play that can lower the morale of a faculty who genuinely believe that students are not approaching their studies or their careers with the right attitude. To the extent that students are not just customers, but bad customers, i.e.

144 customers who express frustration with anger, intolerance, and unrealistic demands, both faculty and administrators have cause to be annoyed.

Suggestions for Practice

Below I will outline suggestions for practice, based on the outcomes of the present study.

Use the Customer Factor to our advantage

It has been discussed above that there may be a way to use the fact that students see themselves as customers to our advantage. If we are able to refine the delivery of services to make it easier for students to engage in the educational process, without consequently diluting the academic rigour of our programs, then we may be able to increase the satisfaction of our students without impacting the satisfaction of faculty and administrators at the same time. This would require institutions to critically examine practices and procedures in place and see if there are practical ways of improving them or making them more consistent. Students in the focus group in the present study spoke of the inconsistent use of the learning management system,

Blackboard. While faculty may argue that students should be able to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of their courses, an opposing view is that students benefit from a consistent experience (Neville,

Heavin & Walsh, 2005), especially when you consider the fact that a full-time load for a student is six courses. So, if institutions are willing to look at the points of contact that students have with institutions that aren’t directly related to their academics, and try to provide an easy-to- navigate, minimally bureaucratic system for students to access information, services, and their academics, perhaps the frustration of our students/customers would be reduced and they would be less likely to challenge faculty on matters of pure academics. This would need to be matched with the strategies described below, as institutions will still need to consider their messaging at

145 all points of contact with students, to ensure that the institution isn’t fostering student entitlement behaviours, or at least is doing so minimally.

Marketing

As it was suggested by faculty that the College’s marketing campaign and branding might reinforce entitled attitudes, it would be interesting for the College to consider an alternate marketing campaign that would reflect a different sentiment than the one reflected in the current campaign. As noted above, faculty felt that the subject college’s marketing campaign reflected an attitude that “we are the best”, which they felt might reflect an entitled perspective. One example of an alternative that faculty had suggested was having a theme around community.

While the suggestion of faculty is well taken in terms of steering students away from a sense that the institution is entitled or tolerant of entitled attitudes, it is also noted that the College is competing for students with other institutions across the GTA, and thus there is a practical, business reason for using traditional marketing principles to attract students to the institution.

However, as discussed above, while this strategy may be needed, it must be balanced with a strategy for when the students arrive at the institution, otherwise the students will continue to see themselves as customers and expect to be treated as such.

Transitioning from customers to students

Assuming that some students see themselves as customers, as has been suggested in the present study, and assuming that institutions will continue to exploit this perception to maximize enrolment, it will be necessary to address this perception once students arrive on our campuses.

If we accept that the students viewing themselves as customers will have a negative impact not only on their learning but also on faculty and administrator satisfaction, then there is good reason

146 to address the transition from customer to scholar with our students. This can come both through messaging that occurs during Orientation sessions with students, but also at the individual course/instructor level. In both instances, it should be made clear what the program’s/institution’s/faculty’s philosophy of teaching and learning are, and to what extent the student is held responsible for their role in the process (Lippman et al., 2009). If we also accept that one aspect of student entitlement is externalizing responsibility to others, focusing on their responsibilities will help to address this belief. Of utmost importance is that the messaging from the institution and the faculty need to be consistent, otherwise students will get mixed messages and attempts at reducing entitlement attitudes will be less effective. In other words, attention needs to be paid to “institutional goals, norms and climate” (Lippman et al., 2009, p. 202).

Student Evaluations and Complaints

Faculty in the focus group on entitlement spoke of student feedback questionnaires and complaints to senior administrators as reasons for faculty being less willing to maintain academic standards. To the extent that there is a heightened emphasis on student evaluations (Cave,

Hanney, Henkel & Kogan, 1997; Titus, 2008), fueling not only the students’ belief that they are customers but also the faculty’s belief that they must keep students happy to keep their jobs, there is reason to consider how student feedback questionnaires are being used and any unintended consequences they may be evoking. One of the classic authors in student feedback questionnaires offered this opinion:

Research described in this article demonstrates that student ratings are clearly multidimensional, quite reliable, reasonably valid, relatively uncontaminated by many variables often seen as sources of bias, and are seen to be useful by students, faculty and administrators. However the same findings also demonstrate that student ratings may have some halo effect, have at least some unreliability, have only modest agreement with some criteria of effective teaching, are probably affecting by some potential sources of bias and are

147

viewed with some skepticism by faculty as a basis for personnel decisions. (Marsh, 1987, p. 369) So, it is clear that student feedback questionnaires have always had issues in terms of their potential for bias and their lack of reliability, though they do offer some insight into what is going on in the classroom. However, it is from the perspective of the driving factor in student entitlement, being students seeing themselves as customers, that we might also want to look at student feedback questionnaires. A student giving constructive feedback on a process whose norms have been agreed and discussed in advance is different than a customer giving feedback on a process with very different norms in play. Students attitudes about their role in the educational process, what level of “service” faculty should offer, and other dynamics identified in the SE scale could have a significant impact on whether they determine a faculty member to be “good” or “bad”. This then is another reason for the institution and individual faculty members to set the tone and explicitly discuss expectations. It will help inform the student feedback questionnaires as it will increase the likelihood of students referencing a shared understanding rather than one influenced by other factors. And again, an institutional response that provides faculty with the needed support. Seasoned faculty and institutional leaders can provide support to new and part-time faculty by reinforcing the fact that the institution is not operating under a business model but rather by an intellectual challenge model (Lippman et al.,

2009).

Limitations of the Research

This study is subject to the limitations of a single institution sample, as well as convenience samples being used for faculty and student focus groups. Further, the concept

148 mapping portion of the study was done online to minimize subject mortality, which involves the loss of participants during the course of a research study.

The fact that this study was done at only one Ontario college limits the generalizability of the results, however the results were validated using a rigorous program of content validity and compared to the theoretical basis for entitlement identified in the literature (Kopp et al., 2011).

The literature review in Chapter Two noted that a variety of different models were identified, based on different strategies for scale creation and also in light of the different contexts in which they were created. For example, as was noted above, the instrument created Chowning and

Campbell (2009) could not be used with the sample in the present study, since principal components analysis suggested a different factor composition for their questions than identified by the researchers when conducting their study. That being said, this study could be helpful in identifying strategies for the subject College, and might be instructive to other Colleges who find themselves dealing with similar issues.

For both the faculty concept mapping exercise/focus group and the student focus group, small convenience samples were used to ensure progress in the study was not stalled. While it was attempted to get a random sample that covered three academic schools, such sampling might be subject to bias.

Lastly, to minimize subject mortality, the concept mapping portion of the study, which was conducted with faculty, was done online to ensure that commitment was not lost due to an overwhelming time commitment in a fixed location. The downside of doing the concept mapping online is the loss of the opportunity for discussion or clarity around the model as a group at each stage of the process.

149

Suggestions for future research There are a number of possibilities in terms of future research on the topic of student entitlement within the Ontario college context. One clear option would be to look at multiple institutions, perhaps in both large urban centres but also in smaller communities, to see if the model in the present study is generalizable to other institutions or jurisdictions within Ontario.

Another possible option for future study, based on the dominance of the Customer factor within the model for student entitlement, would be to explore the issue of consumerism as a central concept to see of what it is comprised, rather than looking at it through the concept of student entitlement.

Further qualitative research would be appropriate to address gaps in social constructivist aspects of the present study, particularly in terms of the perspectives of students. Speaking to the students in the student focus group provided an invaluable perspective into how contextual student expectations are, and thus it would be interesting to do a broad qualitative, phenomenological study to understand the experience of those who express feelings of entitlement. A similar study was conducted by Singleton-Jackson et al., (2010) where they found that students can feel entitled in a number of ways and on various levels (p 355). With faculty, it would be interesting to explore their perceptions in further detail as well, particularly in terms of their perceptions of the scope of the problem relative to what the data in the present study suggests.

In addition, it would be interesting to get the perspectives of college administrators on the issue of student entitlement, as this perspective was not included in the present study, but could provide a different perspective from that of students and/or faculty.

150

Conclusion

The present study has looked at the conceptualization of student entitlement from the point of view of faculty at a large Ontario College in the Greater Toronto Area. This conceptualization proposed a four-factor model of student entitlement. This conceptualization was used to create a new survey on student entitlement, which was piloted and administered to diploma students. Data from the survey results were used to validate the model envisioned by faculty, and the model was further refined to be a three-factor model, based on goodness-of-fit statistics. The three-factor model, it was argued, covered the “breadth of the construct” as proposed by Kopp et al. (2011, p. 112), and the central factor, the Customer factor, which accounted for over 30% of the variance, had strong internal consistency. The model, therefore, has a strong theoretical basis, while also reflecting the points of view of faculty teaching in the relevant context. The present model was also validated by students who confirmed many of the points of view put forth by faculty, either in terms of having witnessed similar behaviours in other students, or by demonstrating expectations of their own during the focus group. The

Customer factor, it was argued, is particularly problematic in that it is an orientation that can be in direct conflict with academic principles of students having to put in significant effort to succeed, and not merely expected to be served. However, it was also argued that the Customer orientation could be manipulated in the favour of institutions by addressing quality of service provision across various points of contact.

Of great importance to me, as a final thought, is that the Student Entitlement epidemic that has been put forth by other authors has not been shown to be true, at least in the institution where this research was conducted. Equally important is the recognition that there may be things that society, and specifically the province of Ontario, has done to foster students to be more

151 entitled. As such, writing off an entire generation as being narcissistic, or overly entitled, when there is ample evidence of other forces at play, pulls us further away from an important dialogue between different generations and, in the case of student entitlement, between faculty and their students.

152

References Achachoso, M.V. (2002). What do you mean my grade is not an A? An investigation of academic

entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from

http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/2486/achacosom07761.pdf?seque

nce=2

American Psychological Association, . (1984). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed.). Washington D.C.: Author

Anderson, S., & Ben Jafaar, S. (2007). Policy narrative for Ontario. In A. Chan, D. Fisher, and

K. Rubenson (Eds.), The evolution of professionalism: Educational policy in the

provinces and territories of Canada (pp.79-97). Vancouver: UBC Centre for Policy

Studies in Higher Education and Training.

Andres, L. (2012). Designing & doing survey research. London: SAGE.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self esteem

cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-

1006.01431.

Borba, M. & Borba, C. (1978). Self-esteem: A classroom affair. San Francisco, CA: Harper &

Row Publishers

153

Brochu, P., Deussing, M. A., Houme, K., & Chuy, M. (2013). Measuring up: Canadian results of

the OECD PISA study. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Toronto. Available

at: http://cmec. ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/318/PISA2012_

CanadianReport_EN_Web. pdf.

Brown, L. (2007, June 9). Failure is not an option. Toronto Star. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from

https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2007/06/09/failure_is_not_an_option.html

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J.(2014).

“That’s not just beautiful—that’s incredibly beautiful!”: The adverse impact of inflated

praise on children with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25, 728-735.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09567976135142

Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. New York: Routledge.

C. Bradley-Geist, J., & B. Olson-Buchanan, J. (2014). Helicopter parents: An examination of the

correlates of over-parenting of college students. Education+ Training, 56(4), 314-328.

Campbell, W.K., Bonacci, A.M., Shelton, J., Exline, J.J., & Bushman, B.J. (2004). Psychological

entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 83(1), Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04 doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04

154

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998 (with 2000,

2002 and 2005 amendments)). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research

involving humans. Retrieved from website:

http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf

Cave, M. (1997). The use of performance indicators in higher education: The challenge of the

quality movement. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Chowning, K., & Campbell, N.J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure of academic

entitlement: individual differences in students' externalized responsibility and entitled

expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 982-997.

Clark, I.D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M.L., and Trick, D. (2009). Academic transformation: The

forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s

University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series.

Combs, A. (1979). Myths in education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cresswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Cudeck, R., & O'Dell, L. L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted

factor analysis: significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological

bulletin, 115(3), 475.

155

Currie, E. (2013, February 27). 50% will be new 'pass' for Humber. Retrieved April 18, 2016,

from http://humberetc.com/

Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of

consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 413–428.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

seld-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Delucchi, M., & Korgen, K. (2002). "we're the customer - we pay the tuition": student

consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors. Teaching Sociology, 30(1), 100-

107.

Demetriou, C. (2008). Arguments against applying a customer-service paradigm. The Mentor:

An Academic Advising Journal, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor

Donnellan, M.B., Trzesniewski, K.H., & Robins, R.W. (2009). An emerging epidemic of

narcissism or much ado about nothing? Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 498-501.

Donnellan, M.B. & Trzesniewski, K.H. (2009). How should we study generational ‘changes” –

or should we? A critical examination of the evidence for ‘Generation Me’. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 3(5), 775-784.

Dubovsky, S.L. (1986). Coping with entitlement in medical education. New England Journal of

Medicine, 315, 1672-1674.

Emery, C., Kramer, T., & Tian, R. (2001). Customers vs. products: Adopting an effective

approach to business students. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(2), 110–115. Retrieved

from http://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/customersVSproducts.htm

156

Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 11-17.

Feather, N.T. (2003). Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: earned outcomes

versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 367-385.

Gidney, R. D. (2002). From Hope to Harris: The reshaping of Ontario’s schools. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1999)

Government of Ontario. (2012, August 3). Student Success/Learning to 18. Retrieved April 11,

2016, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/studentsuccess/strategy.html

Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S.P. (2008). Self-entitled college students:

contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 37. Retrieved from

http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/journal/greenberger-jya08.pdf doi:

10.1007/s10964-008-9284-9\

Haskell, R. E. (1997). Academic freedom, tenure, and student evaluation of faculty. education

policy analysis archives, 5, 6.

Henderlong, J. & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation:

A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774-

795.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.774

Jackson, D. L., Singleton-Jackson, J. A., & Frey, M. P. (2011). Report of a measure of academic

entitlement. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(3), 53-65.

157

Jourard, S. M. (1968). Disclosing man to himself. New York: Van Nostrand.

Kane, M. & Trochim, W.M.K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kelln, B.R.C. (1997). Construction and validation of a self-report measure of exaggerated

deservingness: the xd21. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University

of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Kopp, J.P., Zinn, T.E., Finney, S.J., & Jurich, D.P. (2011). The development and evaluation of

the academic entitlement questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

Development, 44(2), 105-129.

Landrum, R. E., & Dietz, K. H. (2006). Grading without Points Does it Hurt Student

Performance?. College Teaching, 54(4), 298-301.

Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Taking Teacher Responsibility Into

Account(ability): Explicating Its Mulitple Components and Theoretical Status.

Educational Psychologist, 46:2 , 122-140.

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student-

centred learning: beyond'educational bulimia'?. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 321-

334.

Lerner, M.J. (1987). Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: the basic task of

each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences. Social Justice

Research, 1(1), 107-125.

158

Lippmann, S., Bulanda, R. E., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2009). Student entitlement: Issues and

strategies for confronting entitlement in the classroom and beyond. College Teaching,

57(4), 197-204.

Lombardi, J. V. (2007, September 26). The academic success entitlement. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved April 11, 2016, from

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/reality_check/the_academic_success_entitle

ment.

Macfarlane, B. (2016, May 20). Why students are treated worse than customers - University

World News, Issue No. 414. Retrieved June 02, 2016, from

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160517150918945

Maharaj, S. (2015, July 22). Why we should be wary of Ontario's high-school graduation rate.

The Toronto Star. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from the star.com.

Marginson, S. (2009). The limits of market reform in higher education. Institute for Higher

Education (RIHE). Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University. Retrieved from http://www.

cshe. unimelb. edu. au/people/marginson_docs/RIHE_17Aug09_paper. pdf.

Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The

marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer.

Teaching in higher Education, 14(3), 277-287.

Moore, D. L., & Tarnai, J. (2002). Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. In: Groves, R.

M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., and Little, R. J. A. (eds.), Survey Nonresponse, John

Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 197–211.

159

Morrow, W. (1994). Entitlement and achievement in education. Studies in Philosophy and

Education, 13(1), 33-47

Neville, K., Heavin, C., & Walsh, E. (2005). A case in customizing e-learning. Journal of

Information Technology, 20(2), 117-129.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge

economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of education policy,

20(3), 313-345.

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students

and lecturers.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). K. A. Feldman

(Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascual-Leone, A., Singh, T., & Scoboria, A. . (2010). Using deception ethically: practical

research guidelines for researchers and reviewers. Canadian Psychology, 51(4), 241-248.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard business

review, 78(1), 79-90.

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. (1994) The Common Sense Revolution. Toronto:

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario..

160

Ramist, L. (1981). College student attrition and retention. College Board Report, 81(1), 1-40.

Retrieved from https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/RR 81-1.PDF

Reddy, M.K., Fleming, M.T., Howells, N.L., Rabenhorst, M.M., Casselman, R., & Rosenbaum,

A. (2006). Effect of method on participants and disclosure rates in research on sensitive

topics. Violence and Victims, 21, 499-506.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing

Company.

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most

current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved April

11, 2016 from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwche/Milken%20report.pdf

Schiffrin, H.H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H, Geary, A, Erchull, M & Tashner, T. (2014) Helping

or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal

of Child and Family Studies, 23(3), 548-557.

Schings, S. (2009).Are students customers of their universities? [Peer commentary on the paper

“Are students customers of their universities” by Treena Gillespie and Zachary Finney]

Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/Media/News/customers.aspx.

Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., Bauer, A., & Taylor Murphy, M. (2012). The association

between overparenting, parent‐child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits

in adult children. Family Relations, 61(2), 237-252.

Shaw, S. & Fairhurst, D. (2008).Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education + Training,

50(5), 366-378.

161

Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P.(2000). Experiments with incentives in telephone

surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64: 171–188.

Singleton-Jackson, J. A., Jackson, D. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2010). Students as Consumers of

Knowledge: Are They Buying What We’re Selling? Innovative Higher Education, 35(5),

343-358. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9151-y

Steil, J.M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Titus, J. J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control

and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397-422.

Trzesniewski, K.H., Donnellan, M.B., & Robins, R.W. (2008a). Do today's young people really

think they are so extraordinary: an examination of secular trends in narcissism and self-

enhancement. Psychological Science, 19(2), 181-188.

Trzesniewski, K.H., Donnellan, M.B., & Robins, R.W. (2008b). Is "generation me" really more

narcissistic than previous generations?. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 903-917.

Turban, E., Lee, J., King, D., and Chung, H. (2002). Electronic commerce: A managerial

perspective (International Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation me: why today's Americans are more confident, assertive,

entitled - and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press

Twenge, J.M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Campbell, W.K., & Bushman, B.J. (2008a). Egos

inflating over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality

inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875-901.

162

Twenge, J.M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Campbell, W.K., & Bushman, B.J. (2008b). Further

evidence of an increase in narcissism among college students. Journal of Personality,

76(4), 919-927.

Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, W.K. (2009). The Narcissism epidemic: living in the age of

entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in young

adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi: 10.1037/a0027408

Wasieleski, D., Whatley, M., Briihl, D., & Branscome, J. (2014). Academic entitlement scale:

development and preliminary validation. Psychology Research, 4(6), 441-450.

Appendix A - Copy of Student entitlement survey from fluidsurvey.com Student Attitudes Survey

Informed consent

I have read the information presented in the Letter of Information.I understand that at no time will my name be used in the reporting of findings.I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time. I understand that this study has received ethics clearance from the Research Ethics Boards of the University of Toronto and Humber College.If I have questions or concerns, I can contact the Principal Researcher at [email protected] SURVEY WILL BE OPEN UNTIL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016Remember, participation in this survey qualifies you to enter a draw to win an Apple iPad Mini. Great odds and it should only take you ten (10) minutes to complete! Checking the box below indicates that you have read and understand the above information.

I agree A few questions about you...

Remember that no information will be used to identify you. Do you identify as:

Male Female Prefer not to say Age

18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45 or older Highest Educational Experience Achieved (choose one)

High School graduate Some College

163 164

College Graduate Some University University Graduate I am an International student

Yes No I am currently studying in a:

2‐year Diploma program 3‐year Diploma program Degree program Postgraduate certificate program Other Semester of Study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Your Academic School

School of Health Sciences School of Media Studies and Information Technology The Business School Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by checking the appropriate box.

165

1. I should pass a course if I complete all course requirements, regardless of the quality of my work.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 2. Paying tuition should mean I obtain a passing grade.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 3. I shouldn’t have to complete course requirements if I am uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations, group work, field research)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 4. Learning is an activity in which students need to participate in order to be successful.

Strongly Disagree

166

Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 5. It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned readings.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 6. I shouldn’t have to take notes because my professor should provide me with everything I need to learn.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

7. It is not my responsibility to be motivated to learn, my professors need to teach me. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree

167

Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 8. If I miss a class, the professor should provide me with the information and materials that I missed.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 9. My professor should reply to emails within a few hours.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

10. I pay tuition and therefore I should get to have a schedule that suits my needs.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree

168

Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 11. I have a right to do make-up tests and assignments I miss because I pay tuition.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 12. If I am failing a class, the professor should give me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

13. It is common for professors to give students a low mark because they don’t like them.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree

169

Strongly agree 14. I consider it disrespectful if a professor is critical of the work I do.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 15. I think college rules/academic policies should be flexible and not apply to all students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

170

16. If I fail a class, it’s more likely because my professor didn’t teach well than because of my level of effort.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 17. It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 18. If I miss class, it is my responsibility to get the notes.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

19. I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because another group member will end up doing it.

171

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 20. My professors are obligated to help me prepare for exams.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 21. Professors must be entertaining to be good.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

22. I believe that the institution does not provide me with the resources I need to succeed in college.

Strongly Disagree

172

Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 23. Most professors don’t really know what they are talking about.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 24. My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the grade I want.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

25. I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree

173

Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 26. If I do poorly in a course and I could not make my professor’s office hours, the fault lies with my professor.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 27. I believe that it is my responsibility to seek out the resources to succeed in college.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

28. For group assignments, it is acceptable to take a back seat and let others do most of the work if I am busy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree

174

Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 29. For group work, I should receive the same grade as the other group members regardless of my level of effort.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 30. My professors should curve my grade if I am close to the next letter grade.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

31. Professors are just employees who get money for teaching.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree

175

Agree Strongly agree

176

Appendix B - Raw Brainstorming Statements from Faculty Concept Mapping BEHAVOURS/ATTITUDES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT ENTITLEMENT

1. coming to school to "get" a degree, not "earn" a degree 2. trying to manipulate the teacher into 6 more marks to pass an exam (when it is actually 6% that is required to pass) 3. not acknowledging that there are consequences to inappropriate actions/reactions 4. not having to be accountable for whatever they say on the student feedback questionnaires 5. A lack of understanding that grades are earned, require effort, and are based on the quality of work produced. 6. A lack of understanding that learning is an activity in which students need to engage. 7. A student has a right to pass the course if they complete all the course requirements, regardless of the quality of their work. 8. It is up to the student to choose whether to comply with or to flout class rules. 9. A professor "yells" when they say something negative about a student's conduct. 10. It is unfair for a test to include questions on material that is in the required reading but not expressly discussed in class. 11. Expecting instantaneous responses to e-mails. 12. High class averages are a good thing. 13. The student's view that their individual needs are paramount. 14. The educational program should be designed to suit the student's scheduling preferences. 15. I paid my tuition fees, therefore I should be getting... 16. The student arriving late to a test with 35 minutes remaining and only 5 of 40 students in the room and cannot comprehend why it's a problem for them to test. 17. Due to self-diagnosed disabilities, students feel that they should get special accommodation. 18. Students coming up with impractical excuses for missing a test/assignment and suggesting a date of when they can make it up. 19. Lack of respect and gratitude for people volunteering to provide placement or internship opportunity for the student 20. Anger when a field placement or internship interferes with social plans or holidays 21. Expectation of a choice or selection of field placements or internships 22. Booking vacations during the school year and expecting to be accommodated for lost time in class/missed tests etc 23. Use of means to cheat on a test is ok 24. Attitudes that the student deserves a place in the workforce without working for it 25. Attitude that the standards and expectations of the workplace they are training to be a part of do not apply to them

177

26. Student expects access to a make up test or exam due to minor illness (eg; common cold, runny nose) 27. Student shows little or no commitment to the learning process 28. Participation in class discussion is not required 29. Looking for credit in group projects when the appropriate amount of work was not completed to deserve the credit 30. Not completing readings with the expectation that instructors will cover all testable material in class 31. Student feels that they shouldn't have to take notes, that everything should be provided to them 32. Expectation that the teacher provide notes/PowerPoint presentation 33. Getting angry when asked to leave after disruptive behaviour in class (constantly talking while teacher is trying to teach/talk) 34. Having conversation in class while the instructor I taking 35. Belief that students have a right to make up tests and exams because they paid tuition 36. Student thought that they have a right to use electronics in the classroom 37. Attitude that nothing is their fault or find fault in others when things don't go their way 38. Expecting immediate responses to late night or after hours email. 39. becoming angry when a professor refuses to respond to an email written in text lingo (eg. Just checking if U R ok with me being late. Thx.) 40. when a student decides that they paid tuition and therefore everything so go according to their plan! 41. being furious that exams (or regular tests in a class) will go on despite there being a snow storm ("the college is just happy to get my money and doesn't care about my personal safety!) 42. assuming that because they were on the honour roll in high school they should be on it in college. 43. agitated when they realize that despite coming to their professor's office hours to describe how nervous they are to engage in public speaking, they still have to do their presentation if they wish to pass the course. 44. complaining that they are expected to attend 8am classes because they have difficulty getting up that early. 45. expecting their professor to re-teach material that they missed when they weren't in class. 46. being angry/agitated/etc when they realize they are still expected to complete all coursework even though they have a doctor's note that excused them from classes for a period of time. 47. being uncomfortable when they come to a meeting with their parents and the professor still directs all questions to them rather than their parents. 48. becoming emotional/irrational/unprofessional when asked to refrain from behaviours that are disruptive in class

178

49. becoming emotional when someone doesn't respond to their email or voicemail in what they consider to be a timely fashion 50. feeling that if they complain about something it will be changed to meet their desires. 51. spending class time on their Facebook or other social media sites and showing no concern that it's distracting for those around them. 52. leaving class to take a personal phone call and then returning later while class is still on 53. expecting to be on the honour roll despite having poor attendance 54. students want to be treated like adults even though they themselves may not act like an adult 55. students see themselves as customers 56. there is no impact to other students when a student shows up late for class 57. it is not the responsibility of students to be motivated to learn 58. seen when students use any means to pass a course and are uninterested in learning and more focused on getting a grade 59. students who jump process and go directly to the dean or president with concerns 60. detrimental to the class environment 61. students who do not attend or participate in class or work but expect to do well in courses 62. bullying,intimidation behaviours. 63. disregard of rules because they are paying for the program 64. student believes if he/she receives a lower mark, it can't be because of the quality of work but rather it is because the teacher doesn't like him/her 65. if a student is caught for plagiarism, it is the teacher that has to concede to the student 66. when absent or late, students believe it is the teachers responsibility to get the student up to date 67. constantly late 68. student assumption that the teacher knows nothing about the subject matter 69. student assumption that the teacher is wrong 70. criticism of student work is disrespectful 71. submitted work is 100% and teacher must justify deducting marks ("Where did I lose marks?") 72. rules do not apply to them; they are always the exception 73. student says they accept the consequences of their actions (example cheating) but expect a make up assignment or test 74. student believes they have rights but no obligations (example: a right to sign the attendance when they arrive a hour late to class) 75. student confronts faculty with a 'why did you do THIS to ME?' approach rather than 'how can I improve next time' or 'help me understand where I went wrong' 76. expectation that faculty will find a way for student to pass by making up part of a course 77. belief that any criticism of the student is 'inappropriate' on the part of faculty

179

180

Appendix C - Revised Brainstorming statements

BEHAVOURS/ATTITUDES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT ENTITLEMENT

1. Coming to school to "get" a degree, not "earn" a degree 2. Not acknowledging that there are consequences to inappropriate actions/reactions 3. Not having to be accountable for whatever they say on the student feedback questionnaires 4. Not understanding that grades are earned, require effort, and are based on the quality of work produced. 5. Not understanding that learning is an activity in which students need to engage. 6. Believing that a student has a right to pass the course if they complete all the course requirements, regardless of the quality of their work. 7. Believing that it is up to the student to choose whether to comply with or to flout class rules. 8. Lack of tolerance for negative comments about a student's conduct 9. Believing it is unfair for a test to include questions on material that is in the required reading but not expressly discussed in class. 10. Expecting instantaneous responses to e-mails. 11. Believing that high class averages are a good thing. 12. Believing that their individual needs are paramount. 13. Believing the educational program should be designed to suit the student's scheduling preferences. 14. Believing that payment of tuition fees should result in desired outcome. 15. Not understanding why they can't write a test when they have arrived late and other students have already left the testing room. 16. Coming up with impractical excuses for missing a test/assignment. 17. Lack of respect and gratitude for people volunteering to provide placement or internship opportunity for the student 18. Anger when program requirements interfere with social plans or holidays. 19. Expecting a choice or selection of field placements or internships. 20. Booking vacations during the school year and expecting to be accommodated for lost time in class/missed tests etc 21. Believing that cheating on a test is acceptable. 22. Believing that the student deserves a place in the workforce without working for it. 23. Believing that the standards and expectations of the workplace they are training to be a part of do not apply to them. 24. Expecting access to a make up test or exam due to minor illness (eg; common cold, runny nose) 25. Showing little or no commitment to the learning process

181

26. Believing that participation in class discussion is not required 27. Looking for credit in group projects when the appropriate amount of work was not completed to deserve the credit 28. Not completing readings with the expectation that instructors will cover all testable material in class 29. Believing that they shouldn't have to take notes, that everything should be provided to them 30. Getting angry when asked to leave after disruptive behaviour in class (eg. constantly talking while teacher is trying to teach/talk) 31. Belief that students have a right to make up tests and exams because they paid tuition 32. Believing that they have the right to use electronics in the classroom, without limitation. 33. Believing that nothing is their fault or find fault in others when things don't go their way 34. Becoming angry when a professor refuses to respond to an email written in text lingo (eg. Just checking if U R ok with me being late. Thx.) 35. Assuming that because they were on the honour roll in high school they should be on it in college. 36. Becoming agitated when they realize that class requirements apply to them, even if they are uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations) 37. complaining that they are expected to attend 8am classes because they have difficulty getting up that early. 38. being angry/agitated/etc when they realize they are still expected to complete all coursework even though they have a doctor's note that excused them from classes for a period of time. 39. being uncomfortable when they come to a meeting with their parents and the professor still directs all questions to them rather than their parents. 40. feeling that if they complain about something it will be changed to meet their desires. 41. spending class time on their Facebook or other social media sites and showing no concern that it's distracting for those around them. 42. leaving class to take a personal phone call and then returning later while class is still on 43. expecting to be on the honour roll despite having poor attendance 44. wanting to be treated like adults even though they themselves may not act like an adult 45. disregarding the impact on other students when showing up late for class 46. believing it is not the responsibility of students to be motivated to learn 47. using any means to pass a course and being disinterested in learning and more focused on getting a grade 48. Circumventing process and going directly to the dean or president with concerns 49. Not attending or participating in class or coursework but expecting to do well in courses 50. Bullying and intimidation behaviours 51. disregarding rules because they are paying for the program

182

52. believing a lower mark is given because the teacher doesn't like him/her and not because of the quality of work 53. believing it is the teacher's responsibility to get the student up to date when the student is absent or late 54. being regularly late for class 55. assuming that the teacher knows nothing about the subject matter 56. believing that any criticism of student work is disrespectful 57. believing that submitted work is worth 100% and teacher must justify deducting marks 58. believing rules do not apply to them; they are always the exception 59. indicating acceptance of the consequences of their actions but expecting accomodations (eg. Cheating but still wanting to get makeup for lost marks) 60. believing they have rights but no obligations (eg. a right to sign the attendance when they arrive a hour late to class) 61. student confronts faculty with a 'why did you do THIS to ME?' approach rather than 'how can I improve next time' or 'help me understand where I went wrong' 62. expectation that faculty will find a way for student to pass by making up part of a course 63. manipulating the teacher into giving more marks to pass exam 64. Trying to dictate the schedule of when a missed test/assignment will be completed. 65. expecting their professor to re-teach material that they missed when they weren't in class.

183

Appendix D - Rough Clusters and Associated Statements From Faculty Concept Mapping

Cluster Statement

1. Tuition equals outcomes 1. Coming to school to "get" a degree, not "earn" a degree

6. Believing that a student has a right to pass the course if they complete all the course requirements, regardless of the quality of their work.

14. Believing that payment of tuition fees should result in desired outcome.

21. Believing that cheating on a test is acceptable.

35. Assuming that because they were on the honour roll in high school they should be on it in college.

36. Becoming agitated when they realize that class requirements apply to them, even if they are uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations)

47. using any means to pass a course and being disinterested in learning and more focused on getting a grade

2. Knowledge is a right 4. Not understanding that grades are earned, require effort, and are based on the quality of that doesn't require effort work produced.

5. Not understanding that learning is an activity in which students need to engage.

9. Believing it is unfair for a test to include questions on material that is in the required reading but not expressly discussed in class.

11. Believing that high class averages are a good thing.

184

22. Believing that the student deserves a place in the workforce without working for it.

25. Showing little or no commitment to the learning process

26. Believing that participation in class discussion is not required

27. Looking for credit in group projects when the appropriate amount of work was not completed to deserve the credit

28. Not completing readings with the expectation that instructors will cover all testable material in class

29. Believing that they shouldn't have to take notes, that everything should be provided to them

43. expecting to be on the honour roll despite having poor attendance

46. believing it is not the responsibility of students to be motivated to learn

49. Not attending or participating in class or coursework but expecting to do well in courses

53. believing it is the teacher's responsibility to get the student up to date when the student is absent or late

3. I am a customer. Serve 7. Believing that it is up to the student to choose whether to comply with or to flout me. class rules.

10. Expecting instantaneous responses to e- mails.

12. Believing that their individual needs are paramount.

185

13. Believing the educational program should be designed to suit the student's scheduling preferences.

15. Not understanding why they can't write a test when they have arrived late and other students have already left the testing room.

Booking vacations during the school year and expecting to be accommodated for lost time in class/missed tests etc

24. Expecting access to a make up test or exam due to minor illness (eg; common cold, runny nose)

31. Belief that students have a right to make up tests and exams because they paid tuition

38. being angry/agitated/etc when they realize they are still expected to complete all coursework even though they have a doctor's note that excused them from classes for a period of time.

40. feeling that if they complain about something it will be changed to meet their desires.

51. disregarding rules because they are paying for the program

64. Trying to dictate the schedule of when a missed test/assignment will be completed.

65. expecting their professor to re-teach material that they missed when they weren't in class.

4. Problems are due to 2. Not acknowledging that there are consequences to inappropriate others, not me. actions/reactions

8. Lack of tolerance for negative comments

186

about a student's conduct

16. Coming up with impractical excuses for missing a test/assignment.

23. Believing that the standards and expectations of the workplace they are training to be a part of do not apply to them.

30. Getting angry when asked to leave after disruptive behaviour in class (eg. constantly talking while teacher is trying to teach/talk)

39. being uncomfortable when they come to a meeting with their parents and the professor still directs all questions to them rather than their parents.

44. wanting to be treated like adults even though they themselves may not act like an adult

50. Bullying and intimidation behaviours

52. believing a lower mark is given because the teacher doesn't like him/her and not because of the quality of work

56. believing that any criticism of student work is disrespectful

58. believing rules do not apply to them; they are always the exception

59. indicating acceptance of the consequences of their actions but expecting accomodations (eg. Cheating but still wanting to get makeup for lost marks)

60. believing they have rights but no obligations (eg. a right to sign the attendance when they arrive a hour late to class)

5. Lack of professionalism 3. Not having to be accountable for whatever they say on the student feedback

187 questionnaires

17. Lack of respect and gratitude for people volunteering to provide placement or internship opportunity for the student

18. Anger when program requirements interfere with social plans or holidays.

19. Expecting a choice or selection of field placements or internships.

32. Believing that they have the right to use electronics in the classroom, without limitation.

33. Believing that nothing is their fault or find fault in others when things don't go their way

34. Becoming angry when a professor refuses to respond to an email written in text lingo (eg. Just checking if U R ok with me being late. Thx.)

37. complaining that they are expected to attend 8am classes because they have difficulty getting up that early.

41. spending class time on their Facebook or other social media sites and showing no concern that it's distracting for those around them.

42. leaving class to take a personal phone call and then returning later while class is still on

45. disregarding the impact on other students when showing up late for class

48. Circumventing process and going directly to the dean or president with concerns

54. being regularly late for class

55. assuming that the teacher knows nothing

188 about the subject matter

57. believing that submitted work is worth 100% and teacher must justify deducting marks

61. student confronts faculty with a 'why did you do THIS to ME?' approach rather than 'how can I improve next time' or 'help me understand where I went wrong'

62. expectation that faculty will find a way for student to pass by making up part of a course

63. manipulating the teacher into giving more marks to pass exam

189

Appendix E - Statement themes, ratings and those chosen as survey items Items moved from deleted category, Lack of Professionalism

Items selected for inclusion in Student entitlement Survey

Cluster Statement Statement Comment Rating

1. Tuition equals 1. Coming to school to "get" a degree, not Loaded concept outcomes "earn" a degree 4.5 may skew results negatively

6. Believing that a student has a right to pass Clear question the course if they complete all the course tying outcomes to requirements, regardless of the quality of completing their work. coursework (minimum 4.5 requirement when paying $)

14. Believing that payment of tuition fees Clear question should result in desired outcome. 4.5 tying outcomes to tuition

21. Believing that cheating on a test is Loaded concept acceptable. 4.25 may skew results negatively

35. Assuming that because they were on the Lower rating and honour roll in high school they should be on somewhat loaded; it in college. many in our population would 3.88 not be on honour roll

36. Becoming agitated when they realize Clear concept. that class requirements apply to them, even Though perhaps if they are uncomfortable with them (eg. 4.13 fits better in other Presentations) themes.

190

47. using any means to pass a course and being disinterested in learning and more focused on getting a grade

4.13 too many elements, loaded

2. Knowledge is 4. Not understanding that grades are earned, Loaded concept a right that require effort, and are based on the quality 4.5 may skew results doesn't require of work produced. negatively effort 5. Not understanding that learning is an Highly rated; ties activity in which students need to engage. 4.75 in well with theme.

9. Believing it is unfair for a test to include Anecdotally, questions on material that is in the required 4.25 common student reading but not expressly discussed in class. complaint

11. Believing that high class averages are a 2.88 good thing. Very low rating

22. Believing that the student deserves a Loaded concept place in the workforce without working for 4.75 may skew results it. negatively

25. Showing little or no commitment to the Loaded concept learning process 4.5 may skew results negatively

26. Believing that participation in class Low rating, discussion is not required 3.63 potentially loaded question

27. Looking for credit in group projects Loaded concept when the appropriate amount of work was 3.75 may skew results not completed to deserve the credit negatively

28. Not completing readings with the expectation that instructors will cover all 4.38 testable material in class Repeat of 29

191

29. Believing that they shouldn't have to Another good take notes, that everything should be example of provided to them education 4.5 requiring little effort

43. expecting to be on the honour roll Loaded concept despite having poor attendance 3.25 may skew results negatively

46. believing it is not the responsibility of Good general students to be motivated to learn question about 4.63 student's attitude about education

49. Not attending or participating in class or Repeat of 29 but coursework but expecting to do well in 4.25 also too blunt courses (loaded)

53. believing it is the teacher's responsibility Another angle of to get the student up to date when the 4.38 minimum student is absent or late exertion

17. Lack of respect and gratitude for people Too specific - not volunteering to provide placement or all students will internship opportunity for the student 4 have reached this point

41. spending class time on their Facebook or other social media sites and showing no Loaded concept concern that it's distracting for those around 4 may skew results them. negatively

61. student confronts faculty with a 'why did you do THIS to ME?' approach rather than 'how can I improve next time' or 'help me understand where I went wrong' 4.25 too many elements, loaded

3. I am a 7. Believing that it is up to the student to Loaded concept customer. Serve choose whether to comply with or to flout 3.88 may skew results me. class rules. negatively

192

10. Expecting instantaneous responses to e- Anecdotally, mails. 4 common faculty complaint

12. Believing that their individual needs are Loaded concept paramount. 4.13 may skew results negatively

13. Believing the educational program Anecdotally, should be designed to suit the student's common scheduling preferences. 4.13 faculty/PC/Admin complaint

15. Not understanding why they can't write a Loaded concept test when they have arrived late and other 4.13 may skew results students have already left the testing room. negatively

20. Booking vacations during the school Loaded concept year and expecting to be accommodated for 4.01 may skew results lost time in class/missed tests etc negatively

24. Expecting access to a make up test or exam due to minor illness (eg; common 3.63 cold, runny nose) Loaded, low rated

31. Belief that students have a right to make Highly rated; tied up tests and exams because they paid tuition 4.38 in well with other themes as well.

38. being angry/agitated/etc when they realize they are still expected to complete all coursework even though they have a doctor's note that excused them from classes 3.63 Low rated, for a period of time. similar to 31

40. feeling that if they complain about something it will be changed to meet their 3.88 desires. Loaded, low rated

51. disregarding rules because they are Loaded concept paying for the program 4.63 may skew results negatively

193

64. Trying to dictate the schedule of when a 3.88 missed test/assignment will be completed. Loaded, low rated

65. expecting their professor to re-teach material that they missed when they weren't 4.38 Repeat of 53 from in class. theme 1

3. Not having to be accountable for Low rated, not all whatever they say on the student feedback 3.25 students complete questionnaires SFQ

18. Anger when program requirements Loaded concept interfere with social plans or holidays. 4.13 may skew results negatively

19. Expecting a choice or selection of field 3.63 Not relevant to all placements or internships. students

32. Believing that they have the right to use Too specific - not electronics in the classroom, without all students will limitation. 4.03 have reached this point

37. complaining that they are expected to attend 8am classes because they have 3.88 Too specifc and difficulty getting up that early. loaded

42. leaving class to take a personal phone call and then returning later while class is 3.63 still on Loaded, low rated

48. Circumventing process and going Loaded concept directly to the dean or president with 4.38 may skew results concerns negatively

54. being regularly late for class 3.63 Loaded, low rated

57. believing that submitted work is worth Loaded concept 100% and teacher must justify deducting 4.25 may skew results marks negatively

194

62. expectation that faculty will find a way Common for student to pass by making up part of a 4.25 question from course students

63. manipulating the teacher into giving 3.63 more marks to pass exam Loaded, low rated

4. Problems are 2. Not acknowledging that there are due to others, not consequences to inappropriate 4.13 me. actions/reactions Loaded

8. Lack of tolerance for negative comments Loaded concept about a student's conduct 4 may skew results negatively

16. Coming up with impractical excuses for 3.25 missing a test/assignment. Loaded, low rated

23. Believing that the standards and Loaded concept expectations of the workplace they are 4.25 may skew results training to be a part of do not apply to them. negatively

30. Getting angry when asked to leave after disruptive behaviour in class (eg. constantly 4.38 talking while teacher is trying to teach/talk) Too specific

39. being uncomfortable when they come to a meeting with their parents and the professor still directs all questions to them 4.03 rather than their parents. Too specific

44. wanting to be treated like adults even Loaded concept though they themselves may not act like an 4.25 may skew results adult negatively

50. Bullying and intimidation behaviours Loaded concept 4 may skew results negatively

52. believing a lower mark is given because Common concern the teacher doesn't like him/her and not 4.25 because of the quality of work - belief in retributional

195

marking

56. believing that any criticism of student 4 Common faculty work is disrespectful complaint

58. believing rules do not apply to them; 4.63 Highest rated they are always the exception item

59. indicating acceptance of the consequences of their actions but expecting accomodations (eg. Cheating but still 4.25 wanting to get makeup for lost marks) Too specific

60. believing they have rights but no obligations (eg. a right to sign the attendance when they arrive a hour late to 4.38 class) Too specific

33. Believing that nothing is their fault or Direct question re find fault in others when things don't go 4.5 externalized locus their way of control

34. Becoming angry when a professor refuses to respond to an email written in text lingo (eg. Just checking if U R ok with me 3.5 being late. Thx.) Too specific

45. disregarding the impact on other Doesn't tie in well students when showing up late for class with this theme, 4.38 other items more suitable.

55. assuming that the teacher knows nothing 3.13 about the subject matter Low rated

5. Lack of professionalism Items moved to remaining 4 categories

196

Appendix F - Pilot Survey Survey on Student Attitudes

Demographic questions:

Do you identify as

□ Male □ Female □ Prefer not to answer

Age 18-24 □ 25-34 □ 35-44 □ 45 or older □

Highest level of Education High School graduate □ Some College □ College graduate □ Some University □ University graduate □ Check here to confirm you are currently studying in a Diploma program □

THE SURVEY WILL BEGIN ON THE NEXT PAGE

197

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), by checking the appropriate box.

1. should pass a course if I complete all course requirements, regardless of the quality of my work.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

2. Paying tuition should mean I obtain a passing grade.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response?

198

Adequate? YES YES

NO NO YES YES

NO NO

3. I shouldn’t have to complete course requirements if I am uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations, group work, field research)

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

199

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

4. It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned readings.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

200

NO NO NO NO

5. I shouldn’t have to take notes because my professor should provide me with everything I need to learn.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

6. It is not my responsibility to be motivated to learn, my professors need to teach me.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

201

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES YES YES

NO NO NO NO

7. If I miss a class, the professor should provide me with the information and materials that I missed.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

8. My professor should reply to emails within a few hours.

202

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

9. I pay tuition and therefore I should get to have a schedule that suits my needs.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

203

10. I have a right to do make-up tests and assignments I miss because I pay tuition.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

11. If I am failing a class, the professor should give me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

204

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

12. It is common for professors to give students a low mark because they don’t like them.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

205

13. I consider it disrespectful if a professor is critical of the work I do.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

14. I think college rules/academic policies should be flexible and not apply to all students.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

206

NO NO YES YES

NO NO

15. If I fail a class, it’s more likely because my professor didn’t teach well than because of my level of effort.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

16. It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

207

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

17. If I miss class, it is my responsibility to get the notes.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

208

I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because another group member will end up doing it.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

18. My professors are obligated to help me prepare for exams.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

209

YES YES NO NO NO NO

19. Professors must be entertaining to be good.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

20. I believe that the institution does not provide me with the resources I need to succeed in college.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

210

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

21. Most professors don’t really know what they are talking about.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

211

22. My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the grade I want.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

23. I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

212

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

24. If I do poorly in a course and I could not make my professor’s office hours, the fault lies with my professor.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

213

25. I believe that it is my responsibility to seek out the resources to succeed in college.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

26. For group assignments, it is acceptable to take a back seat and let others do most of the work if I am busy.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO

214

NO NO NO

27. For group work, I should receive the same grade as the other group members regardless of my level of effort.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

28. My professors should curve my grade if I am close to the next letter grade.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

215

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

29. Professors are just employees who get money for teaching.

1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □

Provide feedback about the question as per the Participant Guide

Understandable? Only one Scale Loaded? Comments? response? Adequate?

YES YES

YES YES NO NO

NO NO

PARTICIPANT GUIDE

216

Rating scale

1 – Strongly disagree

2 – Disagree

3 – Somewhat disagree

4 – Neither agree nor disagree

5 – Somewhat agree

6 – Agree

7 – Strongly agree

Question Feedback

A. Understandable: Was the item “understandable.” That is, did you have to read the item more than once to understand what it was asking? Was the meaning of the question clear and straightforward?

B. Scale adequate: Was the scale (strongly disagree…..strongly agree) adequate? That is, do you feel the scale provided you with an appropriate way to respond?

C. Only one response: Was the item written in such a way that you could have answered it more than one way? That is, could you have said BOTH “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree”?

D. Loaded: In your opinion, was the item written in such a way that there was only one OBVIOUS answer for you? In other words, the way the item is worded, is it highly

217 likely that respondents, regardless of background or experience, would be able to respond using more than one response choice.

218

Appendix G - Survey Responses Student entitlement Survey

Informed consent

Response Chart Percentage Count

I agree 100.0% 892 Total Responses 892

Do you identify as:

Response Chart Percentage Count

Male 24.6% 219 Female 74.9% 668 Prefer not to say 0.6% 5 Total Responses 892

Age

Response Chart Percentage Count

18‐24 67.8% 605 25‐34 23.1% 206 35‐44 7.2% 64 45 or older 1.9% 17 Total Responses 892

219

Highest Educational Experience Achieved (choose one)

Response Chart Percentage Count

High School graduate 28.0% 250 Some College 35.0% 312 College Graduate 12.8% 114 Some University 6.7% 60 University Graduate 17.5% 156 Total Responses 892

I am an International student

Response Chart Percentage Count Raw Total % of Total

Yes 15.2% 136 1004 13.55% No 84.8% 756 5518 13.70% Total Responses 892

I am currently studying in a:

Response Chart Percentage Count

2‐year Diploma program 96.7% 863 3‐year Diploma program 1.2% 11 Degree program 0.6% 5 Postgraduate certificate 0.2% 2 program Other 1.2% 11 Total Responses 892

220

Semester of Study Response Chart Percentage Count

1 15.7% 140 2 42.8% 382 3 7.8% 70 4 32.1% 286 5 0.4% 4 6 0.8% 7 7 0.1% 1 8 0.2% 2 Total Responses 892

Your Academic School

Response Chart Percentage Count Raw School Total Response Rate

School of Health Sciences 32.2% 287 2010 14.28% School of Media Studies and 15.8% 142 1111 12.78% Information Technology The Business School 52.0% 463 3401 13.61% Total Responses 892 6522

221

1. I should pass a course if I complete all course requirements, regardless of the quality of my work.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 14.7% 131 Disagree 28.6% 255 Somewhat disagree 15.5% 138 Neither agree nor disagree 7.1% 63 Somewhat agree 16.8% 150 Agree 10.0% 89 Strongly agree 7.4% 66 Total Responses 892

2. Paying tuition should mean I obtain a passing grade.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 35.0% 312 Disagree 34.3% 306 Somewhat disagree 7.2% 64 Neither agree nor disagree 7.8% 70 Somewhat agree 5.9% 53 Agree 5.7% 51 Strongly agree 4.0% 36 Total Responses 892

222

3. I shouldn’t have to complete course requirements if I am uncomfortable with them (eg. Presentations, group work, field research)

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 25.4% 227 Disagree 37.4% 334 Somewhat disagree 13.5% 120 Neither agree nor disagree 6.8% 61 Somewhat agree 10.1% 90 Agree 3.3% 29 Strongly agree 3.5% 31 Total Responses 892

4. Learning is an activity in which students need to participate in order to be successful.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 2.6% 23 Disagree 2.9% 26 Somewhat disagree 1.7% 15 Neither agree nor disagree 3.8% 34 Somewhat agree 10.5% 94 Agree 32.5% 290 Strongly agree 46.0% 410 Total Responses 892

223

5. It is unfair to test me on material that wasn’t covered in class, even if it was part of the assigned readings.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 10.7% 95 Disagree 24.2% 216 Somewhat disagree 12.3% 110 Neither agree nor disagree 10.9% 97 Somewhat agree 21.1% 188 Agree 10.8% 96 Strongly agree 10.1% 90 Total Responses 892

6. I shouldn’t have to take notes because my professor should provide me with everything I need to learn.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 25.7% 229 Disagree 37.0% 330 Somewhat disagree 14.8% 132 Neither agree nor disagree 8.2% 73 Somewhat agree 7.8% 70 Agree 2.9% 26 Strongly agree 3.6% 32 Total Responses 892

224

7. It is not my responsibility to be motivated to learn, my professors need to teach me.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 37.8% 337 Disagree 33.3% 297 Somewhat disagree 12.1% 108 Neither agree nor disagree 7.0% 62 Somewhat agree 4.3% 38 Agree 3.1% 28 Strongly agree 2.5% 22 Total Responses 892

8. If I miss a class, the professor should provide me with the information and materials that I missed.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 14.2% 127 Disagree 21.0% 187 Somewhat disagree 13.7% 122 Neither agree nor disagree 14.1% 126 Somewhat agree 20.2% 180 Agree 11.9% 106 Strongly agree 4.9% 44 Total Responses 892

225

9. My professor should reply to emails within a few hours.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 5.3% 47 Disagree 15.5% 138 Somewhat disagree 13.8% 123 Neither agree nor disagree 16.0% 143 Somewhat agree 21.9% 195 Agree 16.9% 151 Strongly agree 10.7% 95 Total Responses 892

10. I pay tuition and therefore I should get to have a schedule that suits my needs.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 4.3% 38 Disagree 12.3% 110 Somewhat disagree 7.5% 67 Neither agree nor disagree 15.6% 139 Somewhat agree 23.2% 207 Agree 21.2% 189 Strongly agree 15.9% 142 Total Responses 892

226

11. I have a right to do make-up tests and assignments I miss because I pay tuition.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 8.6% 77 Disagree 18.0% 161 Somewhat disagree 14.2% 127 Neither agree nor disagree 13.8% 123 Somewhat agree 21.5% 192 Agree 14.3% 128 Strongly agree 9.4% 84 Total Responses 892 12. If I am failing a class, the professor should give me a chance to complete an extra assignment to pass.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 7.2% 64 Disagree 16.0% 143 Somewhat disagree 9.1% 81 Neither agree nor disagree 14.9% 133 Somewhat agree 24.2% 216 Agree 17.2% 153 Strongly agree 11.4% 102 Total Responses 892

227

13. It is common for professors to give students a low mark because they don’t like them.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 25.2% 225 Disagree 23.0% 205 Somewhat disagree 6.4% 57 Neither agree nor disagree 22.4% 200 Somewhat agree 13.3% 119 Agree 4.5% 40 Strongly agree 5.2% 46 Total Responses 892

14. I consider it disrespectful if a professor is critical of the work I do.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 17.5% 156 Disagree 38.1% 340 Somewhat disagree 13.9% 124 Neither agree nor disagree 16.5% 147 Somewhat agree 8.1% 72 Agree 3.6% 32 Strongly agree 2.4% 21 Total Responses 892

228

15. I think college rules/academic policies should be flexible and not apply to all students.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 31.5% 281 Disagree 33.2% 296 Somewhat disagree 9.3% 83 Neither agree nor disagree 12.0% 107 Somewhat agree 8.9% 79 Agree 3.5% 31 Strongly agree 1.7% 15 Total Responses 892

16. If I fail a class, it’s more likely because my professor didn’t teach well than because of my level of effort.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 18.9% 169 Disagree 30.6% 273 Somewhat disagree 14.6% 130 Neither agree nor disagree 18.2% 162 Somewhat agree 10.1% 90 Agree 4.3% 38 Strongly agree 3.4% 30 Total Responses 892

229

17. It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 31.5% 281 Disagree 37.1% 331 Somewhat disagree 10.1% 90 Neither agree nor disagree 12.7% 113 Somewhat agree 3.9% 35 Agree 2.5% 22 Strongly agree 2.2% 20 Total Responses 892

18. If I miss class, it is my responsibility to get the notes.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 1.1% 10 Disagree 1.3% 12 Somewhat disagree 1.9% 17 Neither agree nor disagree 2.0% 18 Somewhat agree 11.9% 106 Agree 36.5% 326 Strongly agree 45.2% 403 Total Responses 892

230

19. I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because another group member will end up doing it.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 49.8% 444 Disagree 34.4% 307 Somewhat disagree 4.5% 40 Neither agree nor disagree 4.9% 44 Somewhat agree 2.7% 24 Agree 2.0% 18 Strongly agree 1.7% 15 Total Responses 892

20. My professors are obligated to help me prepare for exams.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 3.4% 30 Disagree 8.3% 74 Somewhat disagree 7.2% 64 Neither agree nor disagree 11.5% 103 Somewhat agree 28.9% 258 Agree 23.4% 209 Strongly agree 17.3% 154 Total Responses 892

231

21. Professors must be entertaining to be good.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 4.3% 38 Disagree 17.5% 156 Somewhat disagree 9.6% 86 Neither agree nor disagree 17.0% 152 Somewhat agree 30.8% 275 Agree 14.7% 131 Strongly agree 6.1% 54 Total Responses 892

22. I believe that the institution does not provide me with the resources I need to succeed in college.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 25.2% 225 Disagree 36.2% 323 Somewhat disagree 9.2% 82 Neither agree nor disagree 14.5% 129 Somewhat agree 9.6% 86 Agree 3.4% 30 Strongly agree 1.9% 17 Total Responses 892

232

23. Most professors don’t really know what they are talking about.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 27.9% 249 Disagree 39.1% 349 Somewhat disagree 10.5% 94 Neither agree nor disagree 11.7% 104 Somewhat agree 7.1% 63 Agree 1.8% 16 Strongly agree 1.9% 17 Total Responses 892

24. My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the grade I want.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 11.5% 103 Disagree 27.1% 242 Somewhat disagree 10.2% 91 Neither agree nor disagree 20.9% 186 Somewhat agree 17.9% 160 Agree 8.0% 71 Strongly agree 4.4% 39 Total Responses 892

233

25. I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 8.0% 71 Disagree 15.8% 141 Somewhat disagree 8.1% 72 Neither agree nor disagree 14.7% 131 Somewhat agree 18.8% 168 Agree 19.6% 175 Strongly agree 15.0% 134 Total Responses 892

26. If I do poorly in a course and I could not make my professor’s office hours, the fault lies with my professor.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 31.2% 278 Disagree 38.7% 345 Somewhat disagree 10.9% 97 Neither agree nor disagree 13.2% 118 Somewhat agree 3.1% 28 Agree 1.6% 14 Strongly agree 1.3% 12 Total Responses 892

234

27. I believe that it is my responsibility to seek out the resources to succeed in college.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 1.3% 12 Disagree 1.8% 16 Somewhat disagree 3.4% 30 Neither agree nor disagree 4.9% 44 Somewhat agree 17.4% 155 Agree 37.0% 330 Strongly agree 34.2% 305 Total Responses 892

28. For group assignments, it is acceptable to take a back seat and let others do most of the work if I am busy.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 58.7% 524 Disagree 31.3% 279 Somewhat disagree 4.8% 43 Neither agree nor disagree 3.1% 28 Somewhat agree 0.7% 6 Agree 0.6% 5 Strongly agree 0.8% 7 Total Responses 892

235

29. For group work, I should receive the same grade as the other group members regardless of my level of effort.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 36.1% 322 Disagree 29.8% 266 Somewhat disagree 12.2% 109 Neither agree nor disagree 9.1% 81 Somewhat agree 5.0% 45 Agree 5.9% 53 Strongly agree 1.8% 16 Total Responses 892

30. My professors should curve my grade if I am close to the next letter grade.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 10.5% 94 Disagree 21.0% 187 Somewhat disagree 9.2% 82 Neither agree nor disagree 23.9% 213 Somewhat agree 20.6% 184 Agree 9.1% 81 Strongly agree 5.7% 51 Total Responses 892

236

31. Professors are just employees who get money for teaching.

Response Chart Percentage Count

Strongly Disagree 27.0% 241 Disagree 27.9% 249 Somewhat disagree 9.6% 86 Neither agree nor disagree 15.6% 139 Somewhat agree 10.8% 96 Agree 6.1% 54 Strongly agree 3.0% 27 Total Responses 892

237

Appendix H - Item composition of three factors from Chowning and Campbell PCA Externalized Responsibility Subscale

Entitled Expectations Subscale

Component Chowning & Campbell Items 1 2 3 17. It is unnecessary for me to participate in class when the .386 .420 -.209 professor is paid for teaching, not for asking questions. 18. If I miss class, it is my responsibility to get the notes. -.074 -.130 .786 19. I am not motivated to put a lot of effort into group work, because .139 .715 .006 another group member will end up doing it. 20. My professors are obligated to help me prepare for exams. .634 -.053 .016 21. Professors must be entertaining to be good. .646 .077 .029 22. I believe that the institution does not provide me with the .390 .354 -.407 resources I need to succeed in college. 23. Most professors don’t really know what they are talking about. .420 .413 -.280 24. My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the .730 .134 -.107 grade I want. 25. I should never receive a zero on an assignment that I turned in. .654 .149 .127 26. If I do poorly in a course and I could not make my professor’s .382 .494 -.208 office hours, the fault lies with my professor. 27. I believe that it is my responsibility to seek out the resources to -.130 -.138 .791 succeed in college. 28. For group assignments, it is acceptable to take a back seat and let .072 .766 -.151 others do most of the work if I am busy. 29. For group work, I should receive the same grade as the other .151 .700 .141 group members regardless of my level of effort. 30. My professors should curve my grade if I am close to the next .709 .137 -.077 letter grade. 31. Professors are just employees who get money for teaching. .400 .400 -.173

238

Appendix I - Standard Residual Covariances for 4-factor model using CFA

Q13 Q1 Q15 Q16 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q2 Q3

Q13 .000

Q14 .434 .000

Q15 -.989 1.480 .000

Q16 .982 -1.255 -.588 .000

Q9 -.838 -1.356 -2.822 .378 .000

Q10 .963 -.602 -1.177 1.520 3.143 .000

Q11 1.277 -1.061 -.115 .584 -.326 -.214 .000

Q12 .619 -.148 .318 .232 -.139 -2.230 .601 .000

Q4 -2.584 -.355 -1.352 -1.139 2.685 -.851 -.496 .723 .000

Q5 -.049 1.176 -.652 .310 .910 1.160 .577 .721 2.170 .000

Q6 -.379 -1.678 .948 -.706 -.803 -.720 -1.246 .360 -.063 -.101 .000

Q7 -1.019 1.259 1.086 1.501 -.868 -1.067 -1.500 -1.538 -1.715 -1.766 1.512 .000

Q8 -1.750 -1.339 .026 .280 1.955 3.515 .910 -.102 .604 -.332 .558 .343 .000

Q1 -2.735 2.045 -1.079 -2.432 -.405 -1.153 -.394 1.824 2.807 .638 -.720 -1.644 -1.331 .000

Q2 -1.290 1.614 .489 -2.207 -1.922 -.689 -.052 .161 1.251 .380 -.662 .111 -1.311 1.851 .000

Q3 2.687 1.328 1.717 2.787 -.236 2.181 .182 1.642 -2.071 2.761 2.575 1.982 -.275 -2.172 -1.163 .000

Appendix J - Standard Residual Covariances for 1-factor model using EFA

239

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16

Q1 .000

Q2 6.778 .000

Q3 .121 1.193 .000

Q4 2.808 1.679 -1.543 .000

Q5 .748 .657 .843 2.326 .000

Q6 -.184 -.057 1.032 .022 1.214 .000

Q7 -1.055 .359 .790 -2.032 -.720 3.032 .000

Q8 -.946 -1.260 -1.671 .526 .445 1.909 1.600 .000

Q9 -.016 -1.307 -1.280 3.163 .571 -.909 -1.051 1.571 .000

Q10 -1.028 -.536 .490 -.152 .133 -1.425 -1.706 2.558 4.719 .000

Q11 .088 .190 -1.562 -.346 -.582 -1.668 -1.890 .161 1.614 1.531 .000

Q12 1.987 .015 -.101 .885 -.634 -.339 -2.146 -1.008 1.201 -1.122 2.951 .000

Q13 -2.979 -1.926 .721 -2.746 -.569 -.355 -.888 -1.931 -1.247 .015 .953 .079 .000

Q14 1.491 1.536 -.950 -.197 .973 -1.462 1.090 -1.747 -1.486 -1.363 -1.469 -.848 1.959 .000

Q15 -1.321 -.184 -.228 -1.697 -1.157 .936 1.258 -.158 -3.216 -2.094 -.342 -.156 .775 3.115 .000

Q16 -2.784 -2.993 .614 -1.349 -.388 -.833 1.496 -.059 -.177 .378 .117 -.443 2.583 .222 1.171 .000

240

Appendix K - Standard Residual Covariances for 3-factor model using CFA

Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q3 Q4 Q6 Q7 Q13 Q15 Q16 Q1 Q2

Q8 .000

Q9 .510 .000

Q10 1.571 2.995 .000

Q11 -1.056 -.116 -.184 .000

Q12 -1.694 .078 -2.156 1.193 .000

Q3 -.885 -1.057 1.043 -.928 .742 .000

Q4 .586 3.209 -.150 .269 1.337 -.796 .000

Q6 2.976 -.769 -.832 -.977 .633 .342 .581 .000

Q7 2.316 -1.001 -1.370 -1.505 -1.503 -.223 -1.044 1.958 .000

Q13 -.823 -.757 .921 1.604 .929 .166 -1.642 -1.013 -1.814 .000

Q15 1.008 -2.727 -1.203 .236 .654 -.837 -.395 .309 .273 -.096 .000

Q16 1.001 .232 1.188 .570 .263 -.154 -.025 -1.720 .314 1.568 .024 .000

Q1 -.437 .024 -.751 .440 2.564 .876 2.861 .848 -.391 -1.965 -.267 -1.823 .000

Q2 -.667 -1.783 -.668 .373 .561 2.205 1.476 .782 1.228 -.751 1.065 -1.905 .000 .000