Content area
Full text
In this study, 7 items were used to define a composite variable that measures the perceived effectiveness of student conduct systems. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the relationship between perceived level of system effectiveness and self-reported student learning. In the analyses, 49% of the variance in reported learning outcomes was explained by the composite variable. How a conduct system is administered has a dramatic influence on how much is learned by students who interact with that system. When conduct officers view the concepts of due process and fundamental fairness as system efficacy, they are more apt to generate the type of intentional practice advanced by Lancaster (2006). Intentional practice requires student conduct professionals to engage in processes that are timely, fair, explanative, respectful, and facilitative, and that foster student learning.
Environmental factors are important influencers of learning (Astin, 1993), and educators should construct learning environments that facilitate learning. In this article, we apply these concepts to student conduct administration by establishing what the student conduct system learning environment (with respect to the pre-hearing and hearing processes) should include, empirically linking student perceptions of the conduct system learning environment with student learning, and discussing the implications the findings have on the practice of student conduct administration and assessment in general.
The Conduct System Environment
A robust body of case law and literature exists on the topic of student conduct system processes. Beginning with Dixon v. Alabama Board of Education (1961), several cases have established the minimum due process standards for student conduct systems. Citing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, courts have established that, at minimum, administrators must provide to charged students notice of the charges, a summary of the evidence, an opportunity to respond, a statement that findings of responsibility are rooted in evidence, and notification of the outcome of the hearing (Lowery, 2006). These processes have been described as forming a "framework for student conduct" (Lowery, 2006, p. 22).
Administrators working at private institutions are not constitutionally bound to provide the same due process protections required at public institutions. However, many of the same due process rights have been incorporated into the conduct systems at private institutions. For instance, Pavela's model code of student conduct awards the same...