Transcript DEEP Book Major Points
Why Learning Communities Work:
A DEEPer Look at Effective Educational Practice
George D. Kuh
Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University Bloomington November 16, 2004
Student Engagement Quiz
True or False?
More first-year students at research universities participate in learning communities than their peers at liberal arts colleges.
True
(15% vs. 9%)
Student Engagement Quiz
True or False?
More students at research universities do community service as part of a class than students attending liberal arts colleges.
False
(47% vs. 37%)
We all want the same thing — an undergraduate experience that results in high levels of learning and personal development for all students.
Overview
Effective Educational Practice NSSE Framework and Status What We’ve Learned Implications
Points to Ponder
What are we trying to accomplish with living-learning environments?
What makes for an educationally effective living-learning environment?
What would be persuasive evidence that we are accomplishing our intended purposes?
What would be useful data for improving our programs?
Time Spent Preparing for Class (Per Class Per Week) Subject Area
Arts and Humanities Biological/life sciences Business Education Engineering Physical Sciences Professional Social Sciences Other
Totals Faculty expectation of hours/week Faculty belief of actual hours/week Student reported hours/week from NSSE Lower Div.
Upper Div.
Lower Div.
Upper Div.
What Matters to Student Success
5.7 5.7 2.8 3.2
First- Year
3.6 4.0 3.0 4.4 5.1 2.6 3.4 3.3 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.7 4.1 3.4 4.9 4.2 3.9 3.8 5.2 5.7 2.9 3.4 3.6
Senior
3.8 3.8 2.9 3.4 4.3 4.0 3.8 5.2 5.0
5.6
5.6 5.4
5.7
2.5 2.7
3.0
3.1 3.2
3.4
3.4 3.1
3.4
3.3 3.0
3.4
Lessons from the Research
What matters most to desired outcomes is what students do, not who they are
A key factor for student learning is the quality of effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities
What Really Matters in College: Student Engagement “The research is unequivocal: students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are not so involved.”
Ernest T. Pascarella & Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students
Lessons from the Research
What matters most is what students do, not who they are
A key factor is the quality of effort students expend
Educationally effective institutions channel student energy toward the right activities
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987)
Student-faculty contact Active learning Prompt feedback High expectations Respect for diverse learning styles Cooperation among students Time on task
Student Engagement Quiz What percent of full-time students study two hours or more for every hour in class?
(a) 14% (b) 24% (c) 31% (d) 39% (e) 49% a.
14%
Two Components of Student Engagement
1. What students do – T ime and energy devoted to educationally purposeful activities 2. What institutions do – Effective educational practices to induce students to do the right things
Worth Pondering
We value what we measure
Therefore, we should carefully decide what to measure and make certain it comports with our institutional mission, values, and desired outcomes.
Types of Measures
Outcomes measures
Evidence of what students have learned or can do
Process Measures
Evidence of effective educational activity by students and institutions
Evidence of Student Engagement
To what extent do students engage in effective educational practices?
National Survey of Student Engagement
(pronounced “nessie”)
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
(pronounced “sessie”)
College student surveys that assess the extent to which students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development
NSSE Project Scope
620,000 students from 850+ different schools
68% of 4-yr undergraduate FTE
50 states, Puerto Rico, Canada
70+ consortia
The College Student Report
Student Behaviors Institutional Actions & Requirements Reactions to College Student Learning & Development Student Background Information
1
In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?
Effective Educational Practices
Level of Academic Challenge Active & Collaborative Learning Student Faculty Enriching Educational Interaction Experiences Supportive Campus Environment
What have we learned so far from NSSE?
Grades, persistence, and engagement go hand in hand
Second Semester GPA by Engagement 4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Level of Academic Challenge Academic and Collaborative Learning Student Interaction with Faculty Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment Very Low Low Average High Very High
GPA & Student-Faculty Interaction Regression: Random Intercepts and Slopes Model
GPA Interaction with Faculty
Student Engagement Quiz What percent of first-year students never discuss ideas outside of class with a faculty member?
(a) 14% (b) 19% (c) 30% (d) 44% (e) 55% d. 44%
Prompt Feedback
Lower Division FACULTY gave prompt feedback often or very often Upper Division
92% | 92%
STUDENTS received prompt feedback often or very often 1 st yr. Students Seniors
52% / 64%
Retention to Second Year by Engagement 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Level of Academic Challenge Academic and Collaborative Learning Student Interaction with Faculty Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment Very Low Low Average High Very High
Does institutional size matter to engagement?
Yes
, size matters.
Smaller is generally better.
Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment Intervals
65 55 45 35 25 0 10 0 0 10 0 1 150 0 150 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 50 0 2 50 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 50 0 0 50 0 1 750 0 750 1 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 150 0 0 150 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 50 0 0 2 50 0 1 hig hest Enrollment Intervals Level o f Acad emic Challeng e Active and Co llab o rative Learning Stud ent Interactio ns with Faculty Memb ers Enriching Ed ucatio nal Exp eriences Sup p o rtive Camp us Enviro nment
Academic Challenge, Active Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction by Enrollment Level of Academic Challenge Active and Collaborative Learning Student Interactions with Faculty Members
60 50 40 30 20 186 1238 1921 3060 Enrollment 6337 11343 29426
Student engagement varies more within than between institutions.
Level of Academic Challenge: Seniors at Doc-Extensive Schools Percentile 10 Percentile 50 Percentile 90 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Doc-Extensive Institutions 11 12 13 14 15
Student-Faculty Interaction: First-Year Students at Liberal Arts Institutions 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 Percentile 10 Percentile 50 Percentile 90 4 5 6 7 8 Liberal Arts Institutions 9 10 11 12
Worth Pondering
How do we reach our least engaged students?
Who’s more engaged?
Women
Fraternity & sorority members
Full-time students
Students who live on campus
Students with diversity experiences
Learning community students
Experiences with Diversity
Dependent variable
Student Engagement
Academic challenge Higher order Active and Collaborative
Supportive Campus Environment
Supportive Interpersonal Support for learning Satisfaction
Gains in Learning and Intellectual Development
Gains - personal/social Gains – general education
Gains in Social Awareness
Gains - Contributing to community Gains - Understanding self Gains - Understanding others 1st year students 0.43 0.42 0.44 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.26 0.43 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.32 Seniors 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.34 0.26 0.33 0.24 0.42 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.28
Who is likely to participate in LCs?
Both classes: Non-transfer, minority, Greek, fulltime students, and pre professional and 2+ majors
1 st year: low parent education, living on campus
Senior: women
Benefits of Learning Communities
Academic Performance
SAT/ACT
Grades without controls
Grades with pre-college controls
Benefits of Learning Communities
Engagement
Quality of Campus Environment
Learning Outcomes
First-year vs. Senior
Effects of Learning Communities on Engagement
First-year Senior
Standardized Regression Coefficient Sig.
Y Standardized Effect size Standardized Regression Coefficient Sig.
Y Standardized Effect size
Engagement Activities
Academic Efforts Higher Order Thinking Academic Integration Active and Collaborative Learning Interactions with Faculty Diversity Experiences
Perception of Campus Environment
Quality of Academic Advising Supportive Campus Environment Satisfaction
Learning Outcomes
Gains in Personal and Social Gains in Practical Competence General Education Gains .16
.20
.19
.26
.30
.21
.12
.19
.13
.24
.22
.18
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** .32
.40
.39
.53
.60
.41
.23
.37
.25
.48
.45
.36
.12
.15
.16
.24
.22
.16
.08
.14
.10
.18
.16
.11
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** .28
.35
.38
.54
.51
.36
.17
.32
.23
.40
.36
.24
What major public research university ranks in the top 10 among its peers in terms of external grants and contracts but also did six major studies of the quality of the undergraduate experience of its students since 1986?
University of Michigan
Project DEEP
To discover, document and describe what high performing institutions do and how they achieved this level of effectiveness.
DEEP Selection Criteria
Controlling for student and institutional characteristics (i.e., selectivity, diversity, institutional type), DEEP schools have:
Higher-than-predicted graduation rates Higher-than-predicted NSSE scores Region and institutional type, special mission
Project DEEP Partners
DEEP Guiding Questions
:
What do high-performing colleges and universities do to promote student success?
What campus features -- policies, programs, and practices - contribute to high levels of engagement and better than predicted graduation rates?
Project DEEP* Doctoral Extensives University of Kansas University of Michigan Doctoral Intensives George Mason University Miami University (Ohio) University of Texas El Paso Liberal Arts California State, Monterey Bay Macalester College Sweet Briar College The Evergreen State College University of the South Ursinus College Wabash College Wheaton College (MA) Wofford College Master’s Granting Fayetteville State University Gonzaga University Longwood University Baccalaureate General Alverno College University of Maine at Farmington Winston-Salem State University * Selection criteria: Higher-than-predicted graduation rates; Higher-than predicted student engagement scores
Research Approach
Case study method
Team of 24 researchers review institutional documents and conduct multiple-day site visits Observe individuals, classes, group meetings, activities, events Discover and describe effective practices and programs, campus culture
Roundtables conducted by AAHE to explore uses of NSSE data for improvement of student learning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Six Shared Conditions
“Living” Mission and “Lived” Educational Philosophy Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning Environments Adapted for Educational Advantage Clearly Marked Pathways to Student Success Improvement-Oriented Ethos Shared Responsibility for Educational Quality
Hay muchas maneras de matar pulgas
There are many ways to kill fleas
Worth Noting
Many roads to an engaging institution
No one best model Different combinations of complementary, interactive, synergistic conditions
Anything worth doing is worth doing well at scale
Lessons
Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning
Student learning and personal development are high priorities. Bent toward engaging pedagogies “Cool passion” for talent development (students, faculty, staff) Making time for students Recruit and reward faculty and staff committed to pedagogical experimentation
Lessons
Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning
Accommodate students’ preferred learning styles
Faculty and administrators challenge students with high standards “Work with the students we have,” in contrast to focusing only on the best and the brightest
Learning Intensive Practices University of Texas at El Paso uses learning communities and course-based service learning and volunteerism to actively engage its mostly commuter, first-generation students.
Learning-intensive practices
CSUMB and George Mason require every student to take from 1-3 writing-intensive courses. They along with most DEEP schools have strong writing centers to emphasize and support the importance of good writing.
Ample applied learning opportunities
University of Maine at Farmington’s Student Work Initiative employs students in meaningful work in student services, laboratories, and field-research. Such experiences provide opportunities to apply what they are learning to practical, real-life situations.
Lessons
Clearly Marked Pathways to Student Success
Make plain to students the resources and services available to help them succeed.
Some guideposts tied directly to the academic program; others related to student and campus culture. Institutional publications accurately describe what students experience.
Lessons
Clearly Marked Pathways to Student Success
Efforts tailored to student needs. Mutually reinforcing student expectations and behavior, institutional expectations, and institutional reward systems. Redundant early warning systems and safety nets High quality living environments
Examples
Sweet Briar – “intentionally residential”
Ursinus – Common Intellectual Experience and “frosh clustering”
Wofford – preceptors
Michigan – 11 LLCs, WISE, MCSP
Fayetteville State – “Suite Talks”
Sewanee – no cable tv Macalester – “it’s what we don’t have
Intentional acculturation
Miami (Ohio) created the First Year Experience (FYE) Committee to explore ways to enhance the holistic FYE. Means to achieve their goals include (1) Miami Plan Foundation courses taught by full time faculty; (2) optional first-year seminars; (3) community living options that emphasize leadership and service; and (4) cultural, intellectual, and arts events.
“You confront so many different people and so many different views… It really enhances the learning environment because you don’t just learn in the classroom… California State University Monterey Bay student
Questions & Discussion
For More Information NSSE website: http://www.iub.edu/~nsse