MEN AT-RISK: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO ACADEMIC FAILURE

Hilleary Himes, Terry Musser, Janet Schulenberg, Marion Schwartz,

Tanja St. Pierre, Douglas Wilson

Penn State University

2014 NACADA Annual Conference

INTRODUCTIONS

Penn State Division of Undergraduate StudiesResearch and Assessment Team (RATs)

Hilleary HimesTerry MusserTanja St. PierreJanet SchulenbergDel SchwabMarion Schwartz

Graduate AssistantDouglas Wilson

NACADA Research Grant

AGENDA

• Define men at risk• Trends of male student success in

higher education• The Penn State study• Results of Phases 1, 2 and 3• Discussion of Phase 4:

Development and assessment of specific advising practices to engage male students

• Wrap Up

NATIONAL ENROLLMENT TRENDS BY GENDER

GENDER GAP IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER• Rigid Gender Roles attached to

biological sex

• Emphasizes the influence of social interactions, social structures, and social contexts in producing and reinforcing gender roles (not biological differences)

• Gender Roles are well established before college

(Harris 2010)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Hegemonic (Predominant) Masculinity:• The characteristics of masculinity that

become the idealized norm vary, and are acted out by those who are most powerful.

• Masculinity is institutionalized and individualized

• Model of fluent masculinity

• Male students display socially acceptable behaviors

(Edwards and Jones 2009)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

• Gendered Norms:Strong (physically and mentally), rational, control/self-control, objective, unemotional, patriarchal

Hypermasculinity

• Gendered Behavior: Misogyny, excessive alcohol consumption, homophobia, frequent sexual encounters, physical fitness “Toxic Masculinity”(Harris 2008 & 2010)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Inverse relationship between acceptance of masculinity and

lack of academic motivation, lack of

help-seeking

(Wimer and Levant 2011)

• Men are majority of nonacademic violations (Harper, Harris & Mmeje 2005)

• 90% of college students accused of sexual assault, relationship violence & sexual harassment are male (Foubert, Newberry & Tatum 2007, Hong 2000)

• Homophobia (Kahn, Brett & Holmes 2011)

• Depression (Good & Mintz 1990)

• Poor coping techniques (Goos & Wood 1995)

• Academic underachievement (Kellom 2004, Sax 2008)

CONSEQUENCES OF HYPERMASCULINITY

College men spend more time:

• Watching TV• Playing video games• Partying• Consuming alcohol

CONSEQUENCES OF HYPERMASCULINITY: BEHAVIORAL

(Sax 2008)

CONSEQUENCES OF HYPERMASCULINITY: MENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES

(Addis & Mahalik1996, Blazina and Qwatkins 1996)

Lack of help-seeking:

• Help-seeking conflicts with masculinity:• “Norm” for men – against seeking power, control and self-reliance•Only if opportunity to reciprocate – if chance to help later•Only if taking “Control” of problem

• Asking for help is loosing access to power and control

• The higher the level of masculinity, the higher the level of anxiety and depression

THE PENN STATE STUDY

Phase 1: Spring, 2013

Data analysis: Are men more at risk of failure?

Phase 2:Fall, 2013

Survey of male students at University Park Campus: What are the behaviors of men below a 2.0 cumulative GPA?

Phase 3:Spring, 2014

Interviews of men below a 2.0 cumulative GPA: What are the experiences of men on probation?

Phase 4:Spring, 2015

What advising techniques and interventions will help male students make successful transitions to college?

PHASE 1: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PENN STATE MEN

AT RISK

An Examination of FactorsInfluencing Undergraduate Male Student

Success and Retention at Penn State - University Park

(Wilson & Choi, 2013)

What factors influence academic failure of undergraduate students on the PSU University Park campus?

RESEARCH QUESTION

* Definition : failure is defined as earning less than 2.0 cumulative GPA

PHASE 1: DATA SET

All undergraduate, degree-seeking students

Academic record from fall 2010

Predictors:1. Academic Background 2. Demographics3. Attitudes and Expectations

ACADEMIC FAIL (ACDFAIL) AND SEX

AcdFailTotal

Non Failed Failed

Female 15614 311 15925

Male 17990 651 18641

Total 33604 962 34566

HIGH SCHOOL GPA & ACDFAIL

LOGISTIC REGRESSION-DEMOGRAPHICS

Variable β S.E. p-value Exp(β)

Gender (Sex) .599 .081 .000 1.821

Ethnic Group -- -- .000 --

Age .165 .021 .000 1.180

College  -- --  .000  --

Number of Enrolled Semester

-.556 .022 .000 .574

High-school GPA -.525 .50 .000 .591

Mother’s Education Level

-- -- .000 --

Withdraw or Not 1.309 .151 .000 3.702

Intercept -2.995 .645 .000 .050

LOGISTIC REGRESSION- MOTHER’S EDUCATION

20

Categories B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Less than high school

.300 .457 .432 1 .511 1.351

High School .446 .418 1.141 1 .285 1.563

Greater that high school

.266 .417 .406 1 .524 1.304

4year degree -.198 .418 .225 1 .635 .820

greater than 4year degree

.042 .432 .009 1 .923 1.043

graduate degree

-.162 .421 .148 1 .700 .851

Not applicable -.300 .602 .249 1 .618 .740

DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS Gender effect on academic

performance of University Park campus students was revealed

Other potential variables were revealed; Ethnicity, Age, College, Enrolled semester, high school GPA, Mother’s education levelo High school GPA – gender association

Should not over-generalize the results: Sample size problemo Veteran - only 1 record available

PHASE 2: SURVEY FALL 2013

18,138 Male Students at UP 541 emails bounced back

84 opted out 1,287 responded 7% response rate

SURVEY – FALL, 2013

• Survey questions built on literature review

• Posted article about research in Student Newswire BEFORE sending first email

• Sent emails 10/23, 11/1 and 11/12

SURVEY RESULTS

Class Attendance57% attend class

regularly, rarely miss36.4% miss

occasionally5.8% attend

occasionally.9% rarely attend

Average Daily Sleep hours

.7% sleep >12 hours 31.2% sleep 8-12 hours66.6% sleep 4-7 hours1.6% sleep <4 hours

Meals per Day 11.7% > 3 42.1% 3 43.2% 2 2.7% 1 .2% <1

SURVEY RESULTS

Belong to a fraternity? 87.4% No

Serve as a club leader? 57% No

Cumulative GPA: 43.6% 3.5 – 4.0 33.4% 3.0 – 3.49 16.7% 2.5 - 2.99 5.1% 2.0 – 2.49 1.2% <2.0

# of alcoholic beverages/week: 12.4% >20 8.1% 16-20 13% 11-15 18.7% 6-10 47.7% 0-5

Recreational drugs/week: 2.5% >20 1% 16-20 1.4% 11-15 4.4% 6-10 90.6% 0-5

SURVEY RESULTS

Age 18-24 95.6%

Race/ethnicity White 83.9% Asian 6.7% African American 3.5% Hispanic 2.5% Other 3.1%

Veterans 2.6% International 7.6% Athletes 4.5% GLBTQ 7.4%

Raised with involved father 63.4%

Resource >6 times per

semester

5-6 times per

semester

3-4 times per

semester

1-2 times per

semester

Never Rating Count

Learning Center

.9% .6% 2.8% 6.4% 89.3% (1,132)

1,267

Tutoring 2.1% 1.2% 3.8% 8.8% 84.1% (1,066)

1,267

Teaching assistant

6.5% 4.7% 14% 33% 41.8% (530)

1,269

Instructor 7.1% 8.1% 16% 39.2% (501)

29.7% 1,278

Advisor 1% 2.2% 10.6% 51.1% (648)

35% 1,268

Faculty other than instructor

3% 2.4% 5.6% 18.9% 70% (881) 1,258

Fellow student

46.3% (592)

12.8% 18.9% 14.1% 8% 1,280

Utilization of Learning Resources

Activity >20 15-19 10-14 5-9 1-4 0

Studying 20.9% 12.1% 20.3% 24.6% 21% 1.1%

Sports 1.7% 1.7% 3.8% 8.7% 27.5% 56.6%

Student Clubs

4.6% 3.3% 8.1% 19.5% 36.2% 28.2%

A job 6.5% 7% 12.1% 8.2% 4.6% 61.6%

Community Service

1% .3% .9% 3% 13.4% 81.5%

Research 1% 1.4% 4.9% 7.5% 10% 74.9%

Average hours per week on these activities

Activity >20 16-20 11-15 5-10 0-4

Video gaming 3.7% 3.3% 9% 20% 64.1%

Social media 6% 6.4% 16.7% 38.7% 32.3%

Hanging w/friends

13.5% 14.6% 26% 33.4% 12.5%

Average hours per week on these activities

PHASE 3: INTERVIEW OF MALE STUDENTS BELOW 2.0 CUMULATIVE GPA

• 692 male students below 2.0 cumulative GPA @ end of SPRING 2014 semester

• Invited ALL 692 to interview• 8 interviews completed on campus• 7 interviewers (received training)• 2 interviewers present for all

interviews• Digitally recorded and transcribed

PHASE 3: INTERVIEW OF MALE STUDENTS BELOW 2.0 CUMULATIVE GPA

Qualitative Analysis

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

PHASE 4

What unique approaches do you employ when advising male undergraduate students?

What is needed to better address the needs of male undergraduate students?

How would you raise the profile of this issue on your own campus?

THANK YOU!

Q & A