Brands have becoming increasingly important to many nonprofit organisations. Consequently, brand orientation has emerged as an attractive business philosophy in this sector. In this study, the relationship between nonprofit brand orientation (NBO) and organisational performance is examined. Findings suggest that there is a positive association between the dimensions of NBO and nonprofit organisational performance. Further, successful nonprofit organisations tend to be more brand-oriented than their less successful counterparts. Limitations of the study are noted and suggestions for ongoing research offered.

The impact of nonprofit brand orientation on organisational performance

Access to and success in higher education significantly impact occupational stability and mental wellness in the United States, with higher levels of education contributing to increased employability and wellness. Underrepresented first-generation, low-income (UFGLI) college students face particular challenges in attaining higher levels of education, which poses a problem of inequality in their pursuit of educational and career goals. This study investigated the influence of graduate school self-efficacy, self-efficacy for coping with barriers, and family influence on UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school. Only one subconstruct of graduate school self-efficacy (research self-efficacy) and family influences (family values) was found to be predictive of students’ pursuit of graduate school. We discuss these findings and provide recommendations for research and practice.

Underrepresented First-Generation, Low-Income College Students’ Pursuit of a Graduate Education Investigating the Influence of Self-Efficacy, Coping Efficacy, and Family Influence

The pedagogical paradigm shift in higher education to 24-hour learning environments composed of teaching delivery methods of online courses, blended/hybrid formats, and face-to-face (f2f) classes is increasing access to global, lifelong learning. Online degrees have been offered at 62.4% of 2,800 colleges and universities. Students can now design flexible, life-balanced course schedules. Higher knowledge transfer rates may exist with blended course formats with online quizzes and valuable class time set for Socratic, quality discussions and creative team presentations. Research indicates that younger, traditional students exhibit heightened performance goal orientations and prefer entertaining professors who are funny, whereas non-traditional students exhibit mastery profiles and prefer courses taught by flexible, yet organized, professors. A 5-year study found that amongst 51,000 students taking both f2f and online courses, higher online failure rates occurred. Competing life roles for non-traditional students and reading and writing needs for at-risk students suggest that performance may be better if programs are started in f2f courses. Models on effective knowledge transfer consider the planning process, delivery methods, and workplace application, but a gap exists for identifying the diversity of learner needs. Higher education enrollments are being compromised with lower online retention rates. Therefore, the main purpose of this review is to delineate disparate learning styles and present a typology for the learning needs of traditional and non-traditional students. Secondly, psychology as a science may need more rigorous curriculum markers like mapping APA guidelines to knowledge objectives, critical assignments, and student learning outcomes (SLOs) (e.g. online rubric assessments for scoring APA style critical thinking essays on selected New York Times books). Efficacious knowledge transfer to diverse, 21st century students should be the Academy’s focus.

The quest for knowledge transfer efficacy: blended teaching, online and in-class, with consideration of learning typologies for non-traditional and traditional students.

Exploring the factors of gastronomy blogs influencing readers' intention to taste.

This study examined stress, coping, and perceived academic goal progress among first- (n = 363) and continuing-generation (n = 325) college students. Stress was significantly related to institutional supports for first- but not continuing-generation students. In addition, institutional supports explained the relation between stress and perceived academic goal progress for first- but not continuing-generation college students. Reflective coping explained the relation between stress and perceived academic goal progress for first- and continuing-generation college students. Contrary to hypotheses, friend and family supports did not explain the relation between stress and perceived academic goal progress for first- or continuing-generation college students. Findings point to the relative importance of institutional supports in understanding links between stress and perceived academic goal progress for first-generation college students.

Stress, coping, and perceived academic goal progress in first-generation college students: The role of institutional supports.

Previous studies have determined factors contributing to first-generation student success. This study finds that first-generation students are less involved, have less social and financial support, and do not show a preference for active coping strategies. First-generation students report less social and academic satisfaction as well as lower grade point average. ********** Most universities today have embraced the marketing concept. Therefore, both professors and administrators at institutions of higher education need to know their customers (students). Knowing the background of these students can be beneficial in designing programs that will best serve the students they are responsible for educating. While demographic and socioeconomic information on students is collected regularly, many universities rarely use this information to design programs that provide greater value. First-generation students (heretofore referred to as "FGS") account for nearly 50% of today's student population (Choy, 2001). A FGS is defined as a student that comes from a family where neither parent/guardian graduated from college. In contrast, continuing-generation students (heretofore referred to as "CGS") are those students currently in college who have at least one parent/guardian that completed college. This study will explore the differences between FGS and CGS in today's university population. More specifically, it will identify the needs, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of these two disparate groups of students. The graduation rate (persistence) among FGS is much lower than CGS (Ishitani, 2006; Chen & Carroll, 2005; Ishitani, 2003; Warburton, Bugarin & Nunez, 2001). Past research has determined that FGS work more hours and have more financial dependents (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998) and generally feel unprepared to attend college (Rodriguez, 2003). Being ill-equipped to succeed in college has tremendous consequences. It is believed that FGS enter the university with greater stress and equipped with lesser means to cope with this stress. It is expected that first-generation status impacts students' ability to be involved socially on-campus and that a combination of these factors result in lower academic performance and college dissatisfaction. Literature Review What differentiates FGS from their peers is the fact that they did not grow up around adults that completed college. As a result, FGS are less exposed to the support and other contributing factors that provide preparation and support to CGS as they navigate through college. Rodriguez (2003) reported that FGS enter college with less knowledge of the "college-going" process, less academic preparedness, and an inability to acquire necessary funds to pay for college. FGS also reported feeling a certainty to be "discovered" as people that did not belong in college but were pretending that they did (Rodriguez, 2003). In addition, FGS perceive their parents to be less supportive and less encouraging than CGS (Billson & Terry, 1982; Choy, 2001; Rodriguez, 2003; Terenzini, Springer, Yeager, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). FGS enter college working more hours, with lower family incomes, and more financial dependents than CGS (Bui, 2002; Inman & Mayes, 1999, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Parents and family members of FGS may not understand the time and energy that must be invested in college to be successful. As a result, these parents may expect their children to contribute to the family or move out and start their own family upon completing high school just as the parents had to do when they completed their secondary education. Further, FGS are often reluctant to take out student loans to pay for college and also suffer from the fact that federal financial aid is not keeping up with rising tuition (Levine & Nidiffer, 1996; Paulsen & St. …

Why Do First-Generation Students Fail?.

Non-traditional students have been returning to colleges and universities at a rapidly growing rate. This study investigated the stress factors and methods of coping of these nontraditional students during their university experience as compared to traditional students. A survey was conducted at a four-year southwestern state university that was projectable to the entire student population. Respondents were queried with regard to demographics, attitudes, behaviors and outcomes, such as grade point average, levels of stress and coping strategies in the college experience. The research indicates that non-traditional students bring different expectations for the college experience, were less involved in various college social activities and were less interested in “having a good time” in college than traditional students. Nontraditional students experienced differing levels of motivation, campus involvement, and participation in social activities from their traditional counterparts which related to time management issues and lead to differing levels of stress and methods of coping between the two groups of students.

A Study of Non-Traditional and Traditional Students in Terms of Their Time Management Behaviors, Stress Factors, and Coping Strategies

INTRODUCTION Since the 1980's, many public universities in the United States have evolved from "state" universities to "state supported" universities. A "state-assisted" university is one that receives less than 50% of their budget from the state (Archibald and Feldman, 2004). In order to overcome this gap in resources, it is important for universities to become more marketing oriented. The traditional student of yesterday is rare in today's world. There are not many of the typical residential colleges in which a full-time student enters immediately after high school, lives in a dormitory, and rarely works because the parents are their source of support. Less than a quarter of today's undergraduate population fits the description of a traditional student (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Approximately seventy-five percent of college students are commuters (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006). A commuter student is defined as one who does not live on campus (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006), but attends the university from local and surrounding areas (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). In today's competitive environment, it is essential to understand the needs, attitudes and opinions of the large group of the commuter students who ultimately pay many of the school's bills. Understanding group differences between the commuters and non-commuters is critical, as the commuter population nationwide continues to increase and universities are forced to compete for the patronage of these commuter students. Commuting and non-commuting students may be differentiated among three basic dimensions: (1) socioeconomic and demographic differences; (2) academic differences; and (3) non-school obligations and activities. In general, the commuter student's average age and standard deviation of ages tend to be higher than non-commuters. Commuter students are more apt to come from blue collar families with less income and educational background. These commuter students are also more likely to be first generation college students and be less academically prepared for college (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). Many of these commuting students are likely to cycle in and out of college. They may postpone re-enrolling in college and work more hours, so that they can afford the next semester's tuition. Conversely, they may discontinue enrollment in order to take care of their family needs and obligations. For many commuting students, a college degree is something that must be fit into the rest of their life and not the other way around (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Understanding the commuter student is becoming more and more important. Yet, their lives are becoming increasingly complex. Universities need to consider whether it makes sense for the commuting student to pay fees for programs that they will almost certainly never use. The commuter student is less likely to use the recreational center or attend a sporting event, but they still pay the fees. It is important to understand what is significant to the commuting student from the standpoint of tuition and fees. Additional issues that may differentiate commuters and noncommuters include their motivation to attend college, their support groups, how they spend their time, their involvement in school, and their attitudes towards the university. With this growing trend in commuting students expected to continue into the future, understanding the commuter student allows universities to better meet their needs (which is exactly what the marketing concept is all about). LITERATURE REVIEW University education becomes more productive and complete as students develop relationships with their peers and faculty (Astin, 1993; Astin, 1999). Being involved in the university is thought to have a positive effect on the learning experience (Rubin, 2000). For a commuter student, these relationships on campus and involvement in activities may be more complicated. …

Commuter Students: Involvement and Identification with an Institution of Higher Education

This study examines the marketing determinants of customers' attitudes towards selecting a restaurant either for leisure or for business. Various factors such as service, product, location, physical, promotion, price, and image attributes were rated and analyzed on importance. The study utilizes a self-administered questionnaire containing close-ended questions to a random sample of people (usable 556 surveys). The questionnaire consisted of 7-point bi-polar type scales about different attributes. Factor analysis and paired t-tests were performed and means were determined. The findings of this exploratory study supports that customers find food quality, ambience factors, image, and friendly staff important in selecting a fine dining restaurant. The business sector wants availability of rooms for special functions, seminars, and banquets, while the leisure segment wants discounts, buffets, and prices less than $30 a person. INTRODUCTION Restaurants across the globe are estimated to have generated more than US$704 billion in revenues in 1997 and employed more than 48 million people, (Olsen, 1999). According to the National Restaurant Association, almost half of all Americans are cooking fewer meals at home than they were in 1994 (Managing Risk, 1998). Moreover, Americans lives are growing busier making time more valuable. Therefore, people are choosing to spend less time in their kitchens. The number of double-income households is increasing meaning that both spouses are working, which creates less time at home and for meal preparations. In addition, Americans are working beyond forty hours a week. As a result, consumers purchase more prepared or partially prepared foods that require little or no cooking time and dine out for everyday meals more frequently. Restaurants and catering facilities will play a larger part in entertaining family and friends, for business, or special occasions. (Visions of the Future, 2000) As the demand for food away from home increases, there is opportunity for growth in the restaurant industry. According to Setlow (1998), only 29% of Americans enjoy preparing weeknight meals, and less than half like to cook on special occasions and holidays, or when entertaining guests. Therefore, this is where restaurants can offer a hassle-free alternative for individuals and families. A restaurant takes a basic drive-the simplest act of eating-and transforms it into a civilized ritual involving hospitality, imagination, satisfaction, graciousness, and warmth (Gunasekeran, 1992). Physiological and social needs are listed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Hunger is a need that produces physiological discomfort, which can be satisfied by eating. Restaurants can satisfy this physiological need and can also satisfy a person's higher level needs. Going to a restaurant is a social experience, an opportunity to meet old friends, amazed by exciting food presentations, and to even be entertained by a small musical ensemble or a chef preparing the meal at the table in front of the customers. Quick meals and convenience, social occasions, business necessity, and celebration are all reasons people dine out (Kivela, 1997). Two markets can be defined by their ability to satisfy a customer's needs; the dining market are those who need to satisfy both their social and ego needs which may be motivated by recognition, prestige, status, or norms; while the eating market is motivated by physiological needs (Gunasekeran, 1992). Management must determine customers' needs and perceived expectations and satisfy them (Spears, 1991) Customers are people with individual needs, yet segmenting them into groups with similar product needs is a necessity in the foodservice industry (Spears, 1991). The dining market can be divided into two market segments, leisure and business, based on their reasons for dining. Professionals who attend restaurants for economic benefits and meeting with clients comprise the business market. …

Marketing determinants of customers' attitudes towards selecting a restaurant

This is an empirical study to identify the attributes or factors which determine worshippers' satisfaction in a church. The research instrument we used was a self administered questionnaire which was filled out by residents in Denton. The worshippers were asked to rate the importance as well as their satisfaction with the church they attend on four components of worship (i.e., church environment, pulpit ministry, music ministry, and congregational participation). The scales were tested for validity and reliability, and reduced to the necessary number of factors, using factor analysis. Regression on each of the components of worship was also done and analyzed. Further, an ANOVA procedure was done to find out if there are significant differences in the overall altitude and overall satisfaction based on the demographics of the congregation. It is hoped that the study will prove useful to churches so as to improve congregational worship.

Sanjay S. Mehta

Papers

Why Do First-Generation Students Fail?.

A Study of Non-Traditional and Traditional Students in Terms of Their Time Management Behaviors, Stress Factors, and Coping Strategies

Commuter Students: Involvement and Identification with an Institution of Higher Education

Marketing determinants of customers' attitudes towards selecting a restaurant

Marketing of Churches: An Empirical Study of Important Attributes