1 / 32

2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat

2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat. Opening Discussion. What mattered MOST to your success in college as an undergraduate? What should all OSU students do or experience before they graduate?. Overview. Purpose and methodology

idana
Download Presentation

2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat

  2. Opening Discussion • What mattered MOST to your success in college as an undergraduate? • What should all OSU students do or experience before they graduate?

  3. Overview • Purpose and methodology • Demographic characteristics • Benchmark comparisons • Comparisons across time • Expectation gap (BCSSE & NSSE)

  4. College Experience Peer Environment Individual Student Experiences Organizational Context Classroom Experiences Structures policies & practices Student learning and persistence Student Precollege Characteristics and Experiences Out-of-Class Experiences Faculty culture Curricular Experiences Influences on Student Learning and Persistence From Reason, Terenzini, and Domingo (2006, p. 154).

  5. Summary Purpose – national survey aiming to assess the academic engagement of first-year students and seniors. Methodology – web surveys were administered during Spring 2012 by NSSE Institute.

  6. Response Rate

  7. Sample Demographics

  8. Benchmark Comparisons Aspirational Institutions Less Competitive Similar

  9. Comparison Group Demographics

  10. Benchmark Results

  11. Level of Academic Challenge Items– paper more than 20 pages, number of assigned books/readings; emphasis of applying theories to new situations. Freshmen– significantly lower than aspirational (d = -.20). Seniors – significantly lower than all other groups (d = -.16, -.20, and -.18)

  12. LAC Across Time

  13. Active and Collaborative Learning Items – class presentation, worked with others, ask questions, class discussion, sought tutoring, taught others. Freshmen – lower than aspirational (d = -.14) Senior – not different from all other groups

  14. ACL Across Time

  15. Student Faculty Interaction Items – project with faculty, faculty feedback, discuss assignments/grades. Freshmen – higher than peers (d = .14). Senior – lower than aspirational (d = -.07).

  16. SFI Across Time

  17. Enriching Educational Experiences Items – hours in co-curricular activities, community service, culminating senior experience, serious conversations with students of different race/ethnicity Freshmen – lower than aspirational (d = -.22) and peers (d = -.15). Seniors – lower than aspirational (d = -.24), higher than less comp (d = .21) and not different from peers.

  18. EEE Across Time

  19. Supportive Campus Environment Items – campus provides support to succeed academically, quality of relationships with students, administration, etc. Freshmen – higher than aspirational (d = .13), less comp (d = .17) and peers (d = .15). Seniors – higher than peer (d = .08)

  20. SCE Across Time

  21. Benchmark Summary Discussion • Level of academic challenge continues to be a concern (also a concern in 2009, 2005, and 2002) • Supportive campus environment is improved over 2009 results • What do the results so far suggest about students’ experiences at OSU? • What changes might be made at OSU in response to these results?

  22. Expectation Gap 2011 BCCSE – survey of beginning college students to provide information on how incoming freshmen expected to engage at OSU. Cross-sectional comparisons between BCSSE and NSSE allows us to infer gaps between “expected” and “actual” engagement.

  23. Use of Time

  24. Classwork

  25. Diversity

  26. Grades

  27. How are some campuses responding? • Undergraduate research • Learning communities • Service learning • Writing-intensive courses • Capstone experiences • Common intellectual experiences (a “core”) • Collaborative assignments and projects • Diversity / global learning

  28. High impact practices should not be just for honors students “historically underserved students tend to benefit more from engaging in educational purposeful activities [such as high impact practices] than majority students” (p. 17) -Recommends participation in at least two high-impact activities for all students

  29. Discussion • What is the next step for improving engagement at OSU? • What can / will you do in your role at OSU to improve student engagement?

More Related