Transcript The Influence of Classroom Engagement on Community College

Topic Background

Student investment of time and effort in educationally meaningful
activities is a strong predictor of success in college (Astin, 1985;
Kuh, 1993, 2009). However, those studies were conducted with
students at institutions granting baccalaureate degrees (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005). This creates at least two problems.
1.
Engagement’s applicability to community college students has
not been established (Marti, 2009; Pascarella, 1997;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
2.
Community college students often have multiple off-campus
responsibilities that limit their time for engagement in the
college experience (Hammer, Grigsby, & Woods, 1998;
Hanson, Drumheller, Mallard, McKee, & Schlegal, 2011;
Hirschy, Bremer, & Castellano, 2011).
Topic Background

The classroom may be the most promising venue for
fostering meaningful engagement because all
students participate, regardless of their outside
demands.

However, community college faculty receive little, if
any, education about the value of engagement, and
they may not have the skills to foster an engaging
classroom experience (Fugate & Amey, 2000;
Haviland, Turley & Shin, 2011; Wallin & Smith,
2005).
The Problem

There is a lack of understanding of the engaging
community college classroom practices that promote
student success.
Purpose of the Research

To explore links to student engagement from
classroom activities and from faculty practice in a
community college setting.

To identify faculty groups whose classroom and
course activities aligned better with community
college student engagement.
Research Questions
1. What faculty behaviors and course decisions best predict
learning gains for students?
2. How do the faculty’s perception and use of these
identified engaging practices vary based on faculty
characteristics of employment status, academic degree,
course repetition, teaching experience, and teaching
area?
Setting and Sample

Data collected at one California community college:

Community College Survey of Student Engagement
(CCSSE)


n= 748 Students
Community College Faculty Survey of Student
Engagement (CCFSSE)

n= 215 faculty members
Findings
Research Question 1
First, ordinary least squares regression was used to
identify the faculty behaviors and course decisions that
best predict learning gains for students in each of the
following domains:
a. academic learning (α= 0.848)
b. career learning (α= 0.814)
c. personal development (α= 0.882)
28 faculty-contingent variables, plus
student variables of gender and ethnicity
Faculty-Contingent Variables Predicting
Community College Student Learning

Only those faculty-contingent variables or student
variables in RQ1 that significantly predicted student
learning and met one of the following criteria were
chosen to serve as dependent variables for RQ2:



Predicted learning in at least two learning domains
Had a β> 0.100 in at least one learning domain
This yielded seven faculty-contingent variables
Seven Selected Faculty-Contingent Variables for RQ2
Academic
Career
Personal
Development
Quality of relationship with the
instructor
0.245***
0.230***
0.230***
Using computers to complete work
0.253***
0.185***
0.168***
0.185***
0.095*
Discussed career plans with the
instructor
Prepared two drafts of a paper
before submitting
0.084*
0.091*
Performed a new skill as part of
course
0.094*
Worked with instructors on activities
beyond coursework
0.121**
Analyzing basic elements of ideas,
theories and experiences as part of
course
*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001
0.125**
0.097*
Data Analysis and Results
Research Question 2

How do the faculty’s perception and use of these
identified engaging practices vary based on faculty
characteristics of employment status, academic
degree, course repetition, teaching experience, and
teaching area?
Compared with part-time faculty, full-time
faculty are significantly more likely to
emphasize performing a new skill (p<.05).
Course emphasizes performing
a new skill
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Part-time
Full-time
Faculty teaching in a CTE subject area are more
likely to: (1) discuss career plans with students and
(2) emphasize performing a new skill (p<.05).
3.5
3
non-CTE
subject
area
2.5
2
1.5
CTE
subject
area
1
0.5
0
Discussed career
plans with
instructor
Course emphasizes
performing a new
skill
Faculty with more course experience engage
significantly more often in effective engagement
activities (p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001).
Differences Based on Course Experience
7
6
5
4
3
0 to 3
2
>21
1
0
Analyzing the basic
elements of idea,
experience, or
theory***
Course emphasizes Quality of students'
performing a new
relationship with
skill**
instructors*
Faculty with 4-20 course experiences use more
analysis of basic elements than faculty with 0-3
course experiences (p<.05).
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 to 3
4 to 20
Analyzing the basic elements of idea, experience,
or theory*
Faculty with a bachelor’s degree or less engage more
frequently with students around career plans and
activities other than coursework (**p<.01)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
BA or less
Master's
Doctoral
Discuss Career Plans with Worked with instructor on
Instructor**
activities other than
coursework* *
Faculty teaching developmental courses, either exclusively or
partly, require students to prepare multiple drafts of papers more
often than faculty teaching exclusively college level courses
(p<.05).
Prepare Two or More Drafts of a Paper Before Submitting
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Developmental Only Both Developmental
and College Level
College Only
Faculty who teach college-level courses perceive higher
quality relationships with students (p<.05).
Quality of the Students' Relationship with the
Instructors
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Developmental Only
College Only
Central Implications

Course experience plays a key role in three significant learning
predictors (analyzing, new skill, and relationships) which have
influence in all three learning domains

However, developing courses that incorporate and assess
these higher levels of learning (new skill and analysis) can be
formally learned by the faculty or left to trial and error.

Supports the need for:



Formal faculty development (Fugate & Amey, 2000; Haviland,
Turley & Shin, 2011; Lackey, 2001; Wallin and Smith, 2005)
or pre-service training (Fugate and Amey; Lancaster & Bain,
2010; Major & Dolly, 2003; Putman, 2012)
Both options expedite faculty competency rather than informal
faculty development that is unstructured and left to occur
spontaneously during instructional time (Burns, 2008; Burns,
Schaefer & Hayden, 2005).
Central Implications
 It’s all about relationships. Relationships matter
the most!
 Faculty who maintain helpful, available and
sympathetic relationships with students increase
their students’ academic success, career learning,
and personal development more than any other
activity or practice.
 This study also showed that these relationships
are better facilitated as the faculty have more
course experience or teach higher level courses.
Abridged Recommendations

Additional research into the faculty-student relationship
barriers perceived by faculty teaching developmental
courses needs to be addressed.

Community colleges that typically review each CCSSE
and CCFSEE data element on an individual basis using
descriptive statistics should consider adding correlational
analysis, particularly in the areas of student success.

Because faculty behaviors were strongly related to student
learning, formalized preservice training and certification is
needed to place highly qualified and competent faculty, not
just subject experts, in community college classrooms.
References
Alexander, A., Karvonen, M., Ulrich, J., Davis, T., & Wade, A.
(2012). Community college faculty competencies. Community
College Journal Of Research and Practice, 36(11), 849-862.
Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make
faculty and student relationships effective. College Teaching,
50(4), 134-138. doi:10.1080/87567550209595894
Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college
impact. Sociology of Education, 43, 223-254.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory
for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel,
25, 297-308.
Astin, A.W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence.
Change, 17(4), 34-39.
Astin, A. W. (1993a). Diversity and multiculturalism on the
campus: How are students affected? Change, 25, 44-49.
Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college: Four critical years
revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory
for higher education. Journal of College Student Development,
40(5), 518-29.
Burns, J. Z. (2008). Informal learning and transfer of learning:
How new trade and industrial teachers perceive their
professional growth and development. Career and Technical
Education Research, 33(1), 3-24.
Burns, J. Z., Schaefer, K., & Hayden, J. M. (2005). New trade and
industrial teachers' perceptions of formal learning versus
informal learning and teaching proficiency. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education, 42(3), 66-87.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments:
Rethinking academic and social integration among two-year
college students in career-related programs. The Journal of
Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.
Duffy, M., & Chenail, R. J. (2008). Values in qualitative and
quantitative research. Counseling & Values, 53(1), 22-38.
Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community
college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths,
roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1.
Hammer, L.B., Grigsby, T.D., & Woods, S. (1998). The conflicting
demands of work, family, and school among students at an
urban university. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 220-226.
Hanson, T. L., Drumheller, K., Mallard, J., McKee, C., & Schlegel,
P. (2011). Cell phones, text messaging, and facebook:
Competing time demands of today's college students. College
Teaching, 59(1), 23-30.
Haviland, D., Turley, S., & Shin, S. (2011). Changes over time in
faculty attitudes, confidence, and understanding as related to
program assessment. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(1), 6984.
Hirschy, A.S., Bremer, C.D., & Castellano, M. (2011). Career and
technical education (CTE) student success in community colleges: A
conceptual model. Community College Review, 39(3), 296-318.
Kuh, G.D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304.
Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about
student engagement. Journal of College Student Development,
50(6), 683-706.
Lackey, K. (2011). Faculty development: An analysis of current and
effective training strategies for preparing faculty to teach online.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(4), 8-18.
Laird, N. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at
institutions with higher-than-expected persistence rates: What
student engagement data tell us. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 115, 85-99. doi: 10.1002/tl.327
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive
education courses and their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative
study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 117-128.
Lei, S. A. (2008). Assessment techniques of instructors in two
community colleges in a state-wide system. Education, 128(3), 392411.
Lundberg, C. A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement
for employed students. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 201-215.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of
faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by
student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development,
45(5), 549-565.
Major, C.H., & Dolly, J. P. (2003). The importance of graduate program
experiences to faculty self-efficacy for academic tasks. Journal of
Staff, Program & Organizational Development, 19(2), 89-100.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students:
A third decade of research, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and
Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbuam Associates.
Putman, S. M. (2012). Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing
preservice and inservice teachers with different levels of experience.
Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 26-40.
doi:10.1080/01626620.2012.642285
Schmidtke, C. (2009). “That's what really helped me was their teaching”:
Instructor impact on the retention of American Indian students at a
two-year technical college. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
46(1), 48-80.
Schneider, M. & Yin, L.M. (2012). Completion matters: The high cost of
low community college graduation rates. American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from
http://www.aei.org/files/2012/04/02/-completion-matters-the-highcost-of-low-community-college-graduation-rates_173407573640.pdf
Stiles, J., Hout, M., & Brady, H.(2012a). California’s fiscal returns on
investments in higher education. Center for Studies in Higher
Education. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 15.12.
University of California, Berkley.
Stiles, J., Hout, M., & Brady, H.(2012b). California’s economic payoff:
Investing in college access & completion. Campaign for College
Opportunity. Retrieved from
http://www.collegecampaign.org/resources/research/ca-economicpayoff/
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of
student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational
character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education,
68(6), 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first
year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Wallin, D., & Smith, C. (2005). Professional development needs of fulltime faculty in technical colleges. Community College Journal of
Research & Practice, 29(2), 87-108.
doi:10.1080/10668920590524238