Waching daily Feb 21 2018

QQ - Dungu Dungu (Official Music Video) "2018 Release" [HD]

For more infomation >> QQ - Dungu Dungu (Official Music Video) "2018 Release" [HD] - Duration: 3:38.

-------------------------------------------

Channel Intro Video - Duration: 3:07.

Hello, my name is James Hopkins, and I am the world's most pretentious man.

No, really, I have a plaque for it.

I mean, TECHNICALLY it reads as something else, but it's pretty much the same thing.

It's a coffee house writer's award.

I deserve such a pretentious title, to, since I just CANNOT stop taking myself seriously or EVER restrain the aloof tone in my voice.

There is one surprisingly absent layer of pretension, though.

Namely, I haven't uploaded any analysis essays on YouTube.

Which really does rob me of something which I need so dearly,

That being attribute points in pretension.

I've mostly used this YouTube account for turning in projects,

like the entry for Global Game Jam 2018.

The game was titled "Aerie Stationary".

So, anyway, I figured, hey, why shouldn't the world's most pretentious man make some essay videos?

I know that MY favorite YouTubers tend to be game essayists,

such as MatthewMatosis, MrBTongue, Joseph Anderson, or Noah Cadwell-Gervais.

So, why not make my own video essays?

What I should like to HOPE I'll be able to do is look at all the essayist I enjoy,

and find some way to learn from each of their individual strengths.

For instance, MrBtongue's ability to draw in outside knowledge of relevant academics,

Noah Caldwell-Gervais' ability to unapologetically embrace the kind of person he is, hipster and all,

or SuperBunnyHop's ability to utilize his background

(specifically the utilization of his journalistic background,

even though my own background which I'd try to make the most out of would obviously be different from his)

To give you some quick specifics of my background,

I interned with Firaxis Games in the Spring of 2016,

and have been an undergrad of game writing since the autumn of 2016.

So, since I have at least some light experience with game development and game academia, I might take that knowledge and use it to, hopefully, establish a new kind of methodology for game essays.

If that sounds like a lofty (or you could even say "a pretentious") goal, then just wait until you hear what my other goals are, because my long term hope is nothing less than . . .

bridging the gap between storycrafting and gamecrafting.

That's a career-long goal, though - for now, I'm aiming to upload about one video (roughly) each week.

The mid-future goal is that I might use these videos to establish myself as someone who groups or individuals can go to for specialization in game storytelling.

My first video will be titled "The World's Most Pretentious Ludonarrative Essay",

and I hope you enjoy it just as much as I hope my professor enjoys it,

because I'll also be turning it in as a one of the long-term projects for one of my game writing classes.

For more infomation >> Channel Intro Video - Duration: 3:07.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Introduction and Demographics Video 1 of 5 - Duration: 14:35.

Hi everybody, my name is Dr. Matt Lee. I am an associate professor here at James

Madison University and I'm the director of the Madison Matters project, which is

a huge campus climate survey that's now become an advocacy project here at JMU.

So the background of the Madison Matters project is that our project was a joint

collaboration between my research lab in the Department of Psychology which is

the CARDS Lab, the Cultural and Racial Diversity Studies Lab and the LGBTQ

faculty listserv. So a couple of years ago members of the LGBTQ listserv

actually contacted me and my lab and asked us if we were willing to help them

construct a student climate survey and at the time the listserv was interested

in identifying climate experiences of the LGBTQ faculty and staff and because

they were unable to do that they thought that investigating student

experiences of climate would still help them understand more of what was going

on. So the purpose of this series of videos is to discuss our dataset to

help you, our audience, try to make informed decisions about programming,

hiring, and priority setting by trying to get a more thorough understanding of

some of the different demographic backgrounds of our students and

different dimensions of campus climate in which some of our students are either

struggling or are doing well. If at any point you are interested in contacting

us to consult on some of the work that you are doing or you're interested in

learning more about our survey or our results you can contact us at

madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com and we'll also give you some contact information at the

very end of the video. I'd like to thank Art Dean and the JMU Office of Access and Inclusion,

the JMU Department of Psychology, and Paul Mabrey from

Communication Studies for providing us with support as well as funding for

carrying out this project and a huge thanks to all the students and interns

who have worked with us over the years creating some of this content, analyzing

data, and presenting data at a number of different sites thank you very much for

all your help with this project. So this is a photograph of the current

Madison Matters team. We are currently a research and

advocacy project run by the CARDS Lab in the Department of Psychology and so we

collected this data back in 2015 and over the past year and a half we have

been communicating with a number of different offices on campus try to help

them in understanding more of what's going on with the campus climate as well

as provide ideas and brainstorm about what to do about student climate issues.

One of the biggest collaborations that we've conducted this year has been with

JMU's CFI, the Center for Faculty Innovation, in which I partnered with

Emily Gravett and Andreas Broscheid at CFI to create a new institute on

inclusive methods in the classroom. So faculty in this institute are learning a

little bit more about some of the data that we collected in our survey as well

as the demographics of JMU students as well as learning new ideas about how to

create activities and create a positive learning environment for all of our

students. Our main goal right now is to try to promote more dialogue and

advocacy around issues of diversity and inclusion at JMU by using facts by using

data that we have collected and so all of our staff including our Psych and

SMAD undergraduates are trained in data analysis, interpretation, and

communication and many of our students have been involved in meetings and

planning events where we are communicating more about the data that

we have collected. So I'd encourage you to check out our YouTube channel to see

more of the videos that we've done of some of the events that we've created

over the past few years. So what is campus climate? Campus climate refers to

the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and

students of an institution. So it's looking at what the demographics are as

well as how positively people think of one another and if they're actually

getting involved in friendships and relationships with one another if

students trust their faculty members if students trust the institution and feel

connected to the institution. So the last quantitative measure of campus climate

conducted here was actually done by myself and Dr. Dena Pastor back in 2009

and this was project in which we found many minority

students actually reported worse indicators of campus climate compared to

many majority students and specifically some of those groups that were more

vulnerable or reported higher levels of discrimination

included Black, Asian, non-Christian, disabled, or female

students and those students tend to fare worse compared to White, Christian,

non-disabled, and male students and so one of the reasons that we conducted our

survey in 2015 was to help see if there is any change or if there's something

new that we could identify in the more current dataset. We know that campus

climate correlates with a number of outcomes including psychological

well-being, GPA, mental health, and experiences of discrimination and what

you'll see is you watch through a series of videos is that a lot of the findings

actually mirror some national trends in campus climate and some of the other

research that's been conducted at other universities. So one thing that's

really great about our survey is that we expanded our demographic categories to

try to really understand more of how students identify and how that might

matter in their experiences of campus climate and I would like to point out

again at the time that this research was being conducted and even at the time of

publication of this video, this was the largest campus climate dataset of its

kind ever conducted at JMU. We recruited students through GCOM classes and GPSYC

classes for class credit or students who found out about our survey

through message boards bulk email, TV ads, or flyers in academic buildings or on

the Commons could actually participate and enter their email address into a

raffle to win one of twenty gift cards. So briefly, these are the six sections of

our survey and if you notice here we selected measures that were related to

campus climate or correlated to campus climate in addition to more direct

measures of campus climate, so we include the measures of psychological well-being

as well as experiences of discrimination and classroom experiences in addition to

our general perceptions of campus climate. Our fifth section of

the survey will cover awareness and use of campus resources dedicated to

diversity and multiculturalism and then our final survey will cover the

demographics of our sample and in this video I'll be reviewing the major

demographics from our sample. I'd also like to point out that many of the

sections in this survey repeat the campus climate survey items from 2009

and so if you find a copy of the 2009 climate report you can compare some of

the results from that survey to our current investigation. Okay so I'll

finish this video by just reviewing the demographics of our student sample which

again we had just over 7% of the student body complete the survey and as you

notice here I'll be very thorough in describing the different categories that

students used to self-identify. I do want to point out that although JMU asks

about many of these questions on the application process what Madison Matters

did was expand the number of demographic categories and the number of options

that students had to self-identify. For example, when we investigated race, we

also included Arabic and Middle Eastern as a category and if you investigate our

actual results you will see that JMU is a predominantly White campus and

we have an under-representation of Hispanic/Latinx and Black and African

American students compared to the national averages, however our sample

does look fairly representative to what we do know about JMU student

demographics as published on the JMU website. We also asked about both gender

and biological sex so when we refer to gender it's more the person's

psychological sense of self and when we asked about biology we're asking more

about a person's physical sense of self and so you might notice a difference

here in the results for gender and biological sex. Both of the results show

that we do in fact have a majority female campus which we know from

JMU demographics, but we also had fourteen students who self-identified as

transgender. Now in some of our follow up videos, you will notice that we included

some of these smaller demographic categories for purposes of illustration

and those of you who are really into data would know that some of the sample

sizes are possibly too small to permit for analysis but for purposes of really

illustrating some of the major categories of cultural identities, we did

in fact include transgender in our analyses. For other categories such as

Native-American and intersex we omitted those students from follow-up analyses.

Lastly I want to mention that for sexual orientation students actually had a

checklist and can check more than one option so the majority of our students

self-identified as heterosexual followed by 41 bisexual and you'll see here the

rest of the categories. Now queer refers to students who maybe do not identify as

heterosexual. The term pansexual may refer to students who are attracted to

people regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation and the

term asexual may refer to students who may have no romantic or sexual

attraction to others and so a couple things I'd like to point out about this:

number one, many of these demographic identifiers and the percentages received

are actually very similar to the percentages of people who identify with

these same categories in other campus climate surveys. Secondly

for purposes of data analysis which you'll see in some of our other videos

we included heterosexual students as a category and bisexual students as a

category. We also created the third category for students who are homosexual

so if they wrote homosexual or gay or lesbian we included them as a third

category and then any student who recorded some other sexual orientation

we were able to include as a fourth category which would then allow us to

compare these four groups to one another in follow-up analyses. You'll see that

the majority of our sample were first-year students and we had nine

students who were mostly continuing education students so slightly older

than the rest of the sample. I do simply want to point this out because we did

include follow-up analysis in that we found some differences based

on being a non-traditional student. Based on citizenship status as well as

residency status, we find that most of our students are both US born or Virginia

residents and then finally we asked about native language which is also a

new category for JMU to consider. The grand majority of our sample

self-identified as being English native language speakers with about less than

10% self identifying as being bilingual or multilingual. Our last demographic

slide reveals that the grand majority of our students identified as Christian

although almost 400 identified as non-religious. Now I would like to point

out in some of the talks we've been giving at other audiences some people

are surprised but we know that developmentally many college students

are at the age where they are beginning to question whether or not they want to

pursue the same religious identity or background as the one they may have been

exposed to by their parents or caregivers while growing up, so

this number is actually fairly normal compared to other campus climate surveys.

We also asked about ability status which refers to the presence or absence of a

psychological or physical disability and although we found that the majority of

our students reported having no disability about one out of every seven

students reported having some sort of mental health disorder which may have

included something like depression or anxiety. 92 students identified with ADHD

or a learning disorder and 21 students recorded a sensory or motor disability

and so by breaking up this question into other categories we do have a much

better understanding about some of the general categories that students use for

their ability status. Now in this slide you'll also see the parental income and

you might well notice that the JMU student body and and our sample in fact

tend to come from fairly well-to-do backgrounds. Almost a third of our sample

comes from that highest income bracket in the United States with households of

making $100,000 or greater. The middle class which would probably be our fourth

category of income between $40,000 and $60,000 is a much smaller sample size

in our sample with only about one out of every seven

students coming from the actual middle class and even fewer students than

that coming from lower income brackets. Finally I would just like to mention

that we included athlete status as part of our general investigation of campus

climate and it does in fact become relevant even though a very small number

of students self-identify as athletes. You'll see in some of the other videos that

we have about our survey that being an athlete actually may contribute to

different experiences of the campus climate. So just in conclusion of my

video, one thing to be thinking about in terms of using this data is, how

demographically representative is your programming? Is your department? Are the

students that are taking classes in your major? And secondly what are some

demographic questions that you should be asking that maybe aren't currently being

asked by your department or by the university? So one thing we're really

hopeful that happens from you watching our videos and hearing about

our climate research is that you can do something useful with this information

to ask better questions, ask more questions, and really tailor your

programming or your curriculum or your services to meet the needs of a student

body whose demographics are rapidly changing. So we just wanted to say thanks

so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU campus climate. For

more information about the climate you can click on any of the links in our

YouTube series or send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Introduction and Demographics Video 1 of 5 - Duration: 14:35.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Discrimination at JMU (Video 4 of 5) - Duration: 8:52.

Hi my name is Maya Rivers and I'm a senior Psychology major here at JMU and also a research

assistant as a part of the Cultural and Racial Diversity Studies Lab.

I'll be talking us through section 3 of Madison Matters' campus climate study discussing campus

experiences of discrimination.

For this video we're only going to discuss the qualitative questions that have to do

with campus experiences of discrimination.

However, if you're interested in knowing more about the dataset and all aspects of the study,

please feel free to contact Madison Matters at madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

In the next few slides, I'll be discussing the data from students who witnessed or experienced

discrimination on campus, the reason for discrimination, the type or form of discrimination they experienced,

where it took place, and also the perpetrator.

Question 7 of the study asked the participants to check either yes or no if, during their

time at JMU, they have personally experienced discrimination because of biological sex,

gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious background, socio-economic

status, race or ethnicity, disability, country of origin, or language background or accent.

You'll notice that the sample size may change from slide to slide, as some participants

did not provide an answer for all items.

Results from this section of the study, though, show that students are most likely to experience

discrimination because of their biological sex.

191 of the 1,435 participants who completed this section of the survey selected "yes"

for the religious background criteria.

11.7% of the participants reported discrimination based on religious background.

9.7% reported discrimination based on socio-economic status, and 12.9% reported discrimination

based on race or ethnicity.

Finally, approximately 6.2% of the population reported that they had experienced discrimination

due to sexual orientation.

About 1 out of 3 participants of our survey reported that they had experienced discrimination

on campus at least once.

You might also notice on the graph that some participants reported experiencing discrimination

based upon gender identity and gender expression.

Although discrimination as a result of the categories is not as large as others, it may

be helpful to know the difference between the two.

Gender identity is the mental and psychological aspect of how individuals identify their gender.

Gender expression, on the other hand, is the manifestation of gender, such as how one acts,

dresses, etc.

Question 8 of the study analyzes cases in which discrimination was witnessed, in comparison

to experienced.

The participants were asked to indicate if they had witnessed discrimination based upon

the same items presented in the previous slide, and also in a yes/no response style.

More than half of our sample reported that they witnessed discrimination at least once

on campus.

Notice that that's a much larger number of participants who witnessed discrimination

than experienced discrimination on campus.

In fact, the total number of reports of incidents of witnessed discrimination was well over

3,000, which is more than 3 times the amount of reports of personal experiences of discrimination,

as I mentioned on the previous slide.

The green bars on the graph represent the sample of those who experienced discrimination

on campus, whereas the blue bars represent the sample of those who witnessed discrimination

on campus.

As you can see, many more of the participants indicated that they witnessed discrimination

on campus as compared to those who reported that they experienced discrimination on campus.

I'm going to talk through the two largest categories that we noticed here, which were

race and ethnicity and sexual orientation.

About 500 of the participants reported that they witnessed discrimination based upon race

and ethnicity on campus, whereas approximately 130 of the participants reported that they

experienced discrimination based on race and ethnicity on campus.

This tells us that there are a lot more cases of discrimination on campus than people are

reporting experiencing.

About 450 of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination on campus

based upon sexual orientation, whereas less than 100 reported that they experienced discrimination

based on sexual orientation.

This tells us that discrimination based on sexual orientation is also underreported as

it is for race and ethnicity.

Question 9 of the survey asked the participants to identify the types of discrimination they

have personally experienced on campus.

The participants were asked to select all that apply from the following: verbal harassment,

online/social media remarks, graffiti, fear or threat of physical violence or assault,

actual physical violence or assault, property damage, harassment due to being in the "wrong"

bathroom or locker room, or fear of negative consequences from disclosing some aspect of

your identity to an instructor, administrator, supervisor, or peer.

33% of the participants reported that they had experienced discrimination in the form

of online/social media remarks, while 22% of the participants of this section of the

study indicated that they have experienced verbal harassment on JMU's campus, while 12.4%

of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination associated with a fear of negative

consequences from disclosing some aspect of their identity to an instructor, administrator,

supervisor, or peer.

This study is similar to other campus climate studies in its nature.

However, in consulting with Madison Equality, a campus-wide organization that focuses on

JMU's LGBTQ+ community, we decided to add two additional microaggressive items.

Those items include the fear of negative consequences and the "wrong" bathroom categories.

Notice even though 12.4% of the reports of discrimination concerned fear of negative

consequences from disclosing some aspect of their identity, that number was larger than

the number of LGBTQ+ participants in the sample.

When we investigated this 12.4%, we found that students were uncomfortable discussing

their religion or disability with an instructor or peer.

There are also 53 reports of fear of being in the "wrong" bathroom or locker room, and

this number included 100% of our transgender sample.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the total number of reports, which is at about

2,600, is higher than that in question 7.

This could be due to the microaggressions included in this section, and also that some

students perhaps didn't know that cyberbullying was a form of discrimination.

Question 11 of the survey only concerns the participants that did report experiencing discrimination.

The participants were asked to identify areas in which they experienced discrimination on

campus.

They were asked to select all that apply from a provided list of common campus areas.

37.9% of the participants reported that they experienced discrimination in a residence

hall, while 20.7% reported that they experienced discrimination in other areas, which may include

at a party, in off-campus housing, a parking garage, or much more.

Finally, approximately 13.6% of participants experienced discrimination in the classroom.

This information may suggest that students and teachers are often the perpetrators of

discrimination on campus.

Question 12 of the survey asked participants to identify the source of discrimination if

they have ever experienced it on campus.

The participants were asked to select all that apply from a possible list of perpetrators.

The results show that the most common source of discrimination at JMU was other students,

with about 65.5% of the participants reporting that they had experienced discrimination from

their peers.

9.7% of the participants reported that they didn't know, while 9.1% reported the faculty

as a source.

This data falls in line with the findings described in the previous slide.

Overall, this data can be helpful in discrimination prevention techniques through programming,

education, resource building, etc.

As Dr. Lee mentioned in his earlier video, JMU's CFI, or Center for Faculty Innovation,

is a very useful resource for training faculty on issues related to diversity.

However, in addition to faculty, it is important that the JMU community as a whole becomes

more proactive in preventing discrimination on campus.

Please tune in to my colleague Bri's video for a student perspective of what will make

the campus climate a little bit better.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU

campus climate.

For more information about the climate, you can click on any of the links in our YouTube

series, or send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - Discrimination at JMU (Video 4 of 5) - Duration: 8:52.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - JMU Campus Climate (Video 3 of 5) - Duration: 11:49.

Alright so today in this video we're going to be talking about section 2 of

our Madison Matters study which talks about JMU's campus climate and

specifically we're going to delve into sort of students perception of the

campus in terms of whether they feel like they belong on campus, their

perceptions of interconnectedness, and things such as that.

So to specifically talk about section II we're going to be looking at these

four scales. The first one is sense of belonging, the

second one is perception of connectedness, the third is acceptance of

diversity, and the fourth is diversity and inclusivity. As we go on through this

video we're going to touch on the different slides and sort of explain what these

scales look for what are some examples of some questions and we're also going

to look at the internal reliability that these scales have as well. So one of the

first things we're looking at is sense of belonging and this is a student's

personal sense of belonging to JMU. In order to measure that it is a six

item scale that we use it has an internal reliability of .92 which

is fairly high. An example of one of the questions that we did ask our

participants was "I feel a sense of belonging to the JMU campus community." As

we can see we use a six point Likert scale that goes from strongly disagree

to strongly agree. So the next series of slides were going to be talking about group

differences when it comes to sense of belonging to JMU's campus. So for

example in this slide, we're talking about race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. If you look right under you are going to see a blue table and that

blue table is going to tell us whether the results are significant and if we

conducted either an F-test or a t-test. As we see here we have a little

orientation to the graphs we have provided. So for example we notice some

of these shapes down here. And what these shapes show is significant differences

between the two. So for example White students have a higher sense of

belonging compared to Black students as seen with the blue square that's provided. And

as we go along further we see the Hispanic students have a higher sense

belonging compared to our Black students as seen by the purple

diamond that's at the bottom. And as we go on for example when referencing the gender we

see that female students have a higher sense of belonging compared to transgender

students as seen with the triangle provided. And also male

students have a higher sense of belonging to JMU's campus compared to

transgender students as seen with the star. Then lastly when looking here

to the far right we're looking at sexual orientation and we see that our

heterosexual students had a better sense of belonging compared to our bisexual

students and other students as seen with the pentagon and the circle provided below.

In this other category there are students that don't identify as homosexual or

bisexual so this can mean that they are pansexual or queer students. When looking at this slide

the group differences we're examining on this slide are class year, residential

status, citizenship status, and language background and as seen in the previous

slide we also have a blue table here that's provided that's gonna mention whether

and an F or t-test was conducted and what the p-value is for that.

As we can see here on the far right we find that native English-speaking

students have a higher sense of belonging to JMU's campus compared to

our bilingual and multilingual students. An example that could be that this is a

university found in the US and it's very predominantly English-speaking campus and

country as a whole so that could lead to reasons as to why they might not feel

like they belong on campus. In this slide we're looking at right now we're looking

at ability status, income level, and athlete status when it comes to sense of

belonging and as we can see here we have another blue table that's going to provide

us the p value and whether an F or t-test was conducted.

When looking at the far left we see that our students with no

disabilities had a higher sense of belonging compared to our students who

have mental health issues as seen with the diamonds provided under. Now when we

look at the middle we're talking about income and when it comes to income

students that are under the $20,000 income marker have a lower sense of

belonging compared to our students that are found between the $80,000 and

$100,000 bracket. So switching gears a little bit we're going to be

talking about perceptions of connectedness. Compared to the other

scale of sense of belonging that refers to one's personal sense of belonging

campus, perceptions of connectedness is how one perceives the campus is connected

and sort of the community that forms with that and to analyze that we used

a six item scale that has an internal reliability of 0.78. That's

fairly high as well and when looking at an example question one of them is "In

general I feel that the campus climate at JMU is communicative."

So in this slide we're looking at in particular when it comes to perceptions

of connectedness when it comes to race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. As we can see again we have another blue table that talks about the

F and t-test, whether an F or t-test was performed as well as the p-value. One

of the first significant findings we see here when it comes to race is that our

White students had a higher perception of connectedness compared to our Asian/

Pacific Islander students and Black students. Looking at here in the middle

when talking about gender for example we can see that our transgender students

had a lower perception of connectedness compared to our male and female students.

Then when looking at the far right when it comes to sexual orientation we can

see that our heterosexual students had a higher perception of connectedness

compared to our homosexual students, bisexual students, and other students as

well. So in this slide we're going to be talking about class year,

residential status, citizenship status, and language background. Once

again we have a table provided that tells us whether an F or t-test was

conducted and the associated p-value. So when looking at class year we can see

that first years have the higher perception of connectedness. A reason as

to why graduate students might have a lower perception of connectedness could

be because of maybe a lack of student organizational involvement or because

they live off campus and they miss out on the events

that are happening. When looking at language background a reason

as to why bilingual and multilingual students have a person have a lower

perception of connectedness could be that when we look at JMU's campus it's

predominantly English speaking and a lot of people speak English

in and around the campus. The group differences we're going to talk about in this slide are

going to be ability status, income level, and athlete status. When looking down

again we have another blue table that's going to tell us whether an F or t-test

was conducted and the associated p-value with that. Looking at the ability

status we see that no disability students have a higher perception of

connectedness compared to our students that have mental health issues or sensory or

motor disabilities. A lot of that could be maybe they perceive the campus to

have a lack of resources to help students that do have disabilities. So

when looking here we're going to be talking about acceptance of diversity

and this is how students perceive how accepting the campus is in regards to

people of different sexual orientation, ability status, race, income level, etc.

We used a nine item scale had an internal reliability of 0.93 which is fairly high. And

when looking at this slide right here the groups we're looking at are race, gender, biological sex, and sexual

orientation. Once again we have a blue table that's going to tell us the

p-value and then if we did an F or a t-test. When looking at race

in particular we see that White students have a higher perception of accepting of

diversity compared to our Asian and Pacific Islander students. When looking at

gender we see that our transgender students have a lower

perception of acceptance of diversity compared to our male and female students.

And then when looking to the far right when it comes to sexual orientation we

see that our heterosexual students had a higher perceived acceptance of diversity

compared to our homosexual students, bisexual students, and other students.

So when looking at this slide we're looking at class year, residential status,

citizenship status, and language background. Once again you have another

blue table that's provided that tells us whether an F or t-test was performed as

well as the associated p-value. And when looking at class year in particular we

see that the longer that students are at JMU's campus the less accepting

of diversity they see the campus is. In particular we see that our

non-traditional students marked as other perform the lowest on this scale. When

looking at language background we see that our native English speaking

students have a higher perception of accepted diversity compared to our

bilingual and multilingual students on campus. When looking at these group differences

we're looking at ability status, income level, and athlete status. Once again we

have another blue table that's provided that tells us the associated p-value and

whether after an F or t-test was performed. Here, at the far left we're looking at

ability status and you see that our students with no disabilities have a

higher perception of accepted diversity compared to our students

with mental health issues or sensory and motor disabilities. So in section 2.4

we're talking about diversity and inclusivity. That refers to something that is called

structural diversity and that's diversity that you can see on campus whether that

means faculty or students that come from different backgrounds. To find that we

had a 9 item scale that had an internal reliability of .94.

And an example of a question that we asked is, "I think that the JMU student body

is diverse with respect to..." sexual orientation, ability status, etc. So

the group differences we're looking at this slide are race, gender, biological sex, and

sexual orientation. Once again we have another blue table that's provided that's

telling us whether an F or t-test was conducted as well as the associated p-value.

When looking at this graph we can see that there's significant differences

across race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation inferring the campus

isn't diverse or inclusive enough. In particular when looking at race, we see that our

White students had a higher perception of diversity and inclusivity compared to

our biracial/multiracial students. When looking at gender we see that our

transgender students scored lower on this scale compared to our male

and female students. When looking at biological sex we see that females

scored lower than men on this scale. Then lastly when talking about sexual

orientation we have two findings to mention. The first finding that we see is a

heterosexual students scored higher than homosexual students and other students.

The second finding we see as well is that our bisexual students scored higher

than other students. When looking at here the group differences we're examining are

class year, residential status, citizenship status, and language background. Once

again we have another table at the bottom that tells us whether an F or t-test

was performed as well as the associated p-value. When looking at class year we see

that the earlier you are in your academic career at JMU the more diverse

and inclusive you perceive the campus to be with first-year students scoring

higher than everyone else and then sophomore students scoring higher than

everyone else except when compared to our first-year students.

The group differences we're examining this slide are ability status, income level, and athlete

status. Once again we have another blue table down there that tells us whether an F or t-test

was performed as well as the associated p-value. When looking at

ability status we see that students that have mental health issues

see the campus as not diverse or inclusive compared to students with

ADHD and learning disabilities or no disability. When looking at student athletes we see that

student athletes perceive the campus to be inclusive and diverse and a reason as to

why that could be is because they come from more diverse backgrounds whether they are

out of state or maybe even international students. So in closing we can see that students

from dominant cultural groups reported a better campus climate than students

from a minority cultural group. This sort of follows societal trends that we

see. Now ways that we can use this data is first as hiring and promoting more

diverse faculty, staff, and students. And this doesn't mean just having faculty of

color this means having faculty from different countries, different religions,

different sexual orientations. And the reason why we should have those

faculty is because they help integrate innovative teachers techniques and

valuing diverse insights which will create a more inclusive climate for JMU. And my

colleague Bri will elaborate more on why students think it's important to have

that diversity in the classroom in a later video. Lastly it's important that there is

more organizational collaboration with greater commitment to social justice such as

having better communication between offices found on JMU's campus.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for watching our series of videos about the JMU campus

climate. For more information about the climate you can click on any of the

links in our YouTube series or send us an email to

madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.

For more infomation >> Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - JMU Campus Climate (Video 3 of 5) - Duration: 11:49.

-------------------------------------------

Madison Matters Campus Climate Survey Series - General Well-Being (Video 2 of 5) - Duration: 9:10.

So today we will be looking at section 1 of our campus climate survey called

Madison Matters. Section 1 looks at general well-being. In this section we

use two measures to assess general well-being on campus. The first one is

the mental health inventory otherwise known as MHI and this is a measure which

a higher score indicates a worse off mental health. Questions that we used to

assess that are things such as, "during the past month how much of the time were

you a happy person or have you felt calm and peaceful?"

The second survey measure that we use to assess general well-being is

satisfaction with life. In this case a higher score will represent a higher

satisfaction with life so this is questions like in most ways my life is

close to my ideal or the conditions of my life are excellent. In this specific

slide we will be looking at race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation.

This blue box right here will show us significant results. Right here these

asterisks are indicating whether or not those results are significant and

these symbols under the categories like these triangles here they represent when

there's a significant difference between different groups. So for race we did not

find any significant differences in our data on MHI across the different racial

groups. For gender we found significant differences across all three groups

including female, male, and transgender. Transgender have the significantly

highest reported MHI which means that they have a worse off mental health

status. Next up we have female students and the lowest mental health inventory

score is by our male students so male students on campus are reporting

significantly better mental health status than our female and transgender

students. For biological sex we have significant differences between our

female and male students again where male students have a significantly lower

score meaning that they have a better mental health status. And finally for

sexual orientation we are measuring this demographic in four categories including

heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and other and we found significant

differences between heterosexual and other in that heterosexual students have

a lower reported mental health inventory score than our students who identify in

an other status of sexual orientation category so those other students do have

a worse mental health experience. For this next slide we are again looking at

mental health inventory across different demographics.

In this slide we're specifically looking at class year, residential status,

citizenship status, and language background. These results were analyzed in the same

manner our last slides were using analysis of variance for our large

categories of three or more and t-tests for our smaller categories comparing

two groups. In this slide we did not find any significant results meaning

that our mental health status was experienced similarly for students of

all class years, for all residential statuses, for all citizenship statuses,

and for all language backgrounds. For ability status we have a few different

significant findings. Our first one is that students with no disability have a

lower mental health inventory than students that have a disability

identified as mental health issues so students with no disability have a

better mental health status and those with mental health issues. Again for

ability status students that have a mental health issue related ability

status have a higher MHI score than those students with an ADHD or learning

disorder ability status so students again with these mental health issues

have a worse sense of mental health. Income levels we actually did not have

any significant findings on mental health inventory and whether or not a

student was a student athlete did not show any indication of their mental

health inventory as well. So these next few slides we will be looking at the

satisfaction with life measure across the different demographic variables.

These measures were analyzed in the same way our MHI was for larger demographic

variables that have three or more groups we use an analysis of variance F test

and for the ones with just two groups we use t-tests to measure the significance

levels. Again you can look at this blue box right here to see where our

significant findings are and then you can use these symbols under these

categories and see what groups they were between so for this slide we are looking

at race, gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation. We had a significant finding

in the race category. White students had a higher satisfaction with life

score than our Black and African-American students so on average

our white students are experiencing higher satisfaction with their lives.

There were no significant findings for gender or biological sex however you

will notice that while there was not significant finding we have a very much

smaller mean for these transgender students so we may not have had a sample

size large enough to get significance but you can tell there are still

differences across these groups. And finally for sexual orientation we found

again like MHI that our heterosexual students have a higher satisfaction with

life score than our other students do. For this slide will be looking at

satisfaction with life across class year, residential status, citizenship status, and

language background. Our first demographic is class year and we looked

at it in categories of freshman/first-year, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and

other. In this other category we have continuing education or non-traditional

students and we found that our other category does have a significantly lower

satisfaction with life than all other categories.

So those four normal class years and graduate students have a higher

satisfaction with life. In our next area we did not find a significant difference

for residential status however we found a significant difference in citizenship

status. You'll see here that naturalized citizens or green card students have a

lower satisfaction with life than our US-born students do. We did not find any

significant differences as far as language background goes.

So for this next slide we'll be looking at satisfaction with life across ability status,

income, and student athletic status. In this first category we found that

students with a mental health condition have a lower satisfaction with life

compared to students that do not have a disability. In our next level we found that

students that are coming from families under $60,000 a year for annual income

so these three categories have a lower satisfaction of life than students who

come from a family with $100,000 or more in annual income. This could be because

these students have to work more hours in order to help pay for their education

instead of joining other student organizations or hanging out with their

friends as their higher socioeconomic peers might. In our last category we

found no significant differences on satisfaction with life or whether or not

a student was a student athlete. We can identify some of our most vulnerable

populations as transgender, female, students with mental health conditions,

Black and African-American students, non-traditional students or continuing

education, naturalized citizen or green card residents, or students from a lower

socioeconomic status. In my colleague Bri's video on section 5 you'll learn

about the resources and students' awareness about those resources at JMU.

So if you are an instructor at JMU watching this video you should be

considering how the students in your classrooms are experiencing their

general well-being and how you can be more accommodating to them and reach out

with resources. If you are a student watching this you should consider how

your peers are and the experiences they have based on their demographics. You

should be able to advocate within student life and your student

organizations for these groups.

So we just wanted to say thanks so much for

watching our series of videos about the JMU campus climate for more information

about the climate you can click on any of the links in our YouTube series or

send us an email to madisonmattersjmu@gmail.com.