Transcript Assessing LGBT Student Learning Outcomes and Factors that

Assessing LGBT Student Learning
Outcomes and Factors that
Impact Retention
James M. DeVita
Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn
The University of Tennessee
Purpose



First, to assess how LGBT-identified students at the
University of Tennessee-Knoxville (UTK) feel about the
services provided by the institution.
Second, to compare how the services offered at UTK for
LGBT students compare to a group of peer institutions.
Third, to determine which factors contribute to the
retention of LGBT students at UTK.
Objectives
At the end of this session, participants should be able
to:
 List several challenges faced by LGBT students in
college.
 Name 2-3 programs or services that target the
needs of LGBT students on campus.
 Compare the services provided by various
institutions and describe how such factors relate to
LGBT student retention.
Problem

Though many campuses assume that they
either are or are not currently meeting the
needs of the LGBT student populations, few
take the time to evaluate what needs are
not being met or what areas are most
important for the learning and retention of
LGBT students.
LGBT Student Population



Difficult student population to survey because of
hidden identity.
The simplest way to survey LGBT students is to contact
an LGBT student organization, as we did in this study.
However, this may skew our results.
Issues of gender, race, ethnicity, class and other
aspects of identity are often set aside because white
gay male population and/or white female lesbian and
bisexual populations are easier to survey
College Student Retention

A number of theories exist that relate to or
describe college student retention (or
departure from college) including:



Astin’s (1984) involvement theory
Astin’s I-E-O theory
College impact models (Terenzini, Springer,
Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996)
College Student Retention

Prevailing theory on college student
retention—one that has reached “near
paradigmatic stature” (Braxton, 2000)—is
Tinto’s interactionalist theory

“a student who is socially and academically
anchored at a college will find it difficult to leave
because it involves severing both social and
academic ties” (Bean, 2005, p. 233).
College Student Retention
Commitments
Academic System
Commitments
Grade performance
Academic integration
Intellectual
development
Family background
Goal commitment
Goal commitment
Dropout decisions
Individual attributes
Pre-college schooling
Institutional
commitment
Peer-group
interactions
Institutional
commitment
Social integration
Faculty interactions
Social System
Figure 2 . A Conceptual Scheme for Dropout from College
Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment

Not only is retention important, but what
students get out of college is equally as
important; thus, recent attention has been
directed to student learning outcomes
(Strayhorn, 2006).

For e.g., Learning Reconsidered I & II, Frameworks for
Assessing Learning and Development Outcomes identify
important outcomes such as effective communication,
critical thinking, realistic self-appraisal, interpersonal
skills
Methodology






Sample included 29 LGBQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Questioning) Students at UT – no transgender respondents
Developed three-part questionnaire that was administered to
students through the Lambda Student Union List-serve
Section Two: qualitative assessment data collected using nine
short answer responses
Section Three: quantitative data collected using five point Likert
scale for thirteen items
Chi-square tests were utilized to determine statistically significant
differences on thirteen quantitative items from Part Three
Advocate College Guide (2006) used to identify five “peer”
institutions – George Mason, University of Maryland, University of
North Carolina, University of Louisville and University of Florida –
compared results of twenty item survey of services in the guide to
those currently offered at UTK
Key Findings

The researchers identified several key
factors that lead to LGBT students’
dissatisfaction on campus:



Harassment (social integration)
Ambivalence towards on-campus housing (social
integration)
Lack of faculty and staff interactions (academic
& social integration)
Key Findings (Cont’d)






Over 50% of all respondents reported being harassed due to
their LGBQ-identity on campus, p=.073; findings consistent with
national data (Rankin, 1998).
Nearly 60% of respondents reported being Neutral towards living
in the dorms, while an additional 25% had outright negative
feelings.
Respondents reported a strong desire to have more LGBTidentified faculty, staff and students on campus, p<.02.
Respondents believed that the lack of LGBT-specific support and
services at UT make it difficult for them to be happy at UT,
p<.001.
Respondents believe that UT should do more to support their
LGBT-identified students, p<.001.
UT scored a total of three on the twenty-point survey adapted
from the Advocate College Guide; peer institutions scored as
follows: UL - 12, GM - 13, UNC - 15, MD - 17, and UF - 17.
Statistical Findings

See chart on next page
Items
Welcome at UT
X2
df
p
5.034
2
.081
Safe at UT
.897
2
.639
Supported by non-LGBT people
.483
2
.786
Rely on LGBT community for support
.897
2
.639
Comfortable coming out in class
3.586
2
.166
Have been harassed by non-LGBT
5.241
2
.073
Difficulty finding fulfilling relationship
6.276
2
.043
LGBT identity has prevented from academic success
8.552
2
.014
Comfortable living in the dorms at UT
8.552
2
.014
Satisfied with # of LGBT students at UT
6.276
2
.043
16.621
2
.000
8.345
2
.015
19.931
2
.000
Wish for more LGBT faculty and/or staff at UT
Lack of support/services makes it difficult to be happy
UT should do more for LGBT students
Implications for Student Services




Since climate for LGBQ students at UTK is clearly “chilly,” are our
students “Ready for the World” with regards to LGBT issues? How does
this impact our campus? What implications does it have for them as
they enter the “real world”?
Services and support offered by UT do not compare well with those
offered at other institutions of similar size, mission and geographic
location - Are we comfortable “falling behind” in our support of LGBT
issues?
What can we do to support LGBT-identified students better, yet also
educate non-LGBT students in a non-threatening or imposing manner?
Can we find a way to do more but still uphold the mission and values of
the institution?
Implications for Retention
Research

Current state of retention research focuses
on the extent to which our theories and
models fit various subgroups (i.e., race,
gender, sexual orientation, etc.)

Findings presented herein point to the
importance of academic and social integration of
LGBT students (e.g., feeling comfortable in
dorms, wishing for more LGBT faculty) and may
point to areas where resources can be directed
to impact LGBT student retention and success!
Q&A
Contact Information


James M. DeVita
Graduate Assistant
[email protected]
Terrell L. Strayhorn, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor & Special Assistant
to the Provost
[email protected]