peter ewell george kuh kay mcclenney carol twigg national center for academic transformation 2 nd...

Peter EwellPeter EwellGeorge KuhGeorge Kuh

Kay McClenneyKay McClenneyCarol TwiggCarol Twigg

National Center for Academic National Center for Academic Transformation 2Transformation 2ndnd Annual Annual

ConferenceConference

Assessing Student Assessing Student Engagement: Engagement:

NSSE and CCSSENSSE and CCSSE

Course Redesign in a National Course Redesign in a National Context: Two PointsContext: Two Points

The National Imperative to Increase The National Imperative to Increase Educational Attainment Among Young Educational Attainment Among Young Adults to Maintain Global Adults to Maintain Global CompetitivenessCompetitiveness

The Need for Evidence-Based The Need for Evidence-Based Continuous Improvement in Teaching Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learningand Learning

Policy Challenges for the U.S.Policy Challenges for the U.S.

Global Competitiveness in Degree Global Competitiveness in Degree AttainmentAttainment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Canada

Japan

Korea

Sw

eden

Belgium

Ireland

Norw

ay

United S

tates

Spain

France

Finland

Australia

Denm

ark

United K

ingdom

Netherlands

Iceland

Luxem

bourg

Sw

itzerland

New

Zealand

Greece

Poland

Germ

any

Austria

Mexico

Hungary

Portugal

Italy

Slovak R

epublic

Czech R

epublic

Turkey

25 to 34

45 to 54

Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Young and Older Adults – The U.S. and OECD Countries, 2004

Source: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2006



The New Majority and Demographic The New Majority and Demographic GapsGaps

Educational Attainment of Young Workforce (Age 25-34) Indexed to Most Educated Country, 2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey; OECD

Females

Males

White

Females

Males

African-American

Females

Males

Hispanic/Latino

Females

Males

Native American/AK Native

Females

Males

Asian/Pacific Islander

0.9

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.40.3

0.4

1.71.6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Norway

U.S. Index = 86%

Canada

U.S. Index = 77%

All College Degrees (Associate or Higher)

Bachelor's Degree or Higher




Questionable Levels of Graduate Questionable Levels of Graduate AchievementAchievement

Prose Literacy Levels for College Level Populations

2

4

1

2

3

1

16

20

11

10

14

6

58

56

65

49

53

56

23

19

23

40

31

38

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Associate Degree Holders 1992 (NALS)

Associate Degree Holders 2003 (NAAL)

Current 2-Year College Students (NSACS)

Bachelors Degree Holders 1992 (NALS)

Bachelors Degree Holders 2003 (NAAL)

Current 4-Year College Students (NSACS)

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient


Global Competition in Degree Global Competition in Degree AttainmentAttainment



In an Environment of Increasing Fiscal In an Environment of Increasing Fiscal StrainStrain





In an Environment of Increasing Fiscal In an Environment of Increasing Fiscal StrainStrain

We Need Higher Levels of Collegiate We Need Higher Levels of Collegiate Achievement at a Price that the Achievement at a Price that the Country Can AffordCountry Can Afford

What Really Matters in College: Student EngagementStudent Engagement

Because iBecause individual effort and ndividual effort and involvement are the critical involvement are the critical determinants of college impact, determinants of college impact, institutions should focus on the institutions should focus on the ways they can shape their ways they can shape their academic, interpersonal, and academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings to extracurricular offerings to encourage encourage student engagementstudent engagement. .

Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 602Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 602

Good Practices in Good Practices in Undergraduate EducationUndergraduate Education

(Chickering & Gamson, 1987; (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)

Student-faculty contactStudent-faculty contact Active learningActive learning Prompt feedbackPrompt feedback Time on taskTime on task High expectationsHigh expectations Respect for diverse learning stylesRespect for diverse learning styles Cooperation among studentsCooperation among students

National Survey of National Survey of Student EngagementStudent Engagement(pronounced “nessie”)

Community College Community College Survey of Student Survey of Student EngagementEngagement(pronounced “cessie”)

College student surveys that assess the extent to which students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development

NSSE SurveyNSSE Survey

Student Behaviors

Institutional Actions & Requirements

Reactions to People & Environment

Student BackgroundInformation

Student Learning &

Development

Effective Educational PracticesEffective Educational Practices

Level of Level of Academic Academic ChallengeChallenge

Active & Active & Collaborative Collaborative

LearningLearning

EnrichingEnrichingEducational Educational ExperiencesExperiences

SupportiveSupportiveCampusCampus

EnvironmentEnvironment

Student-Student-Faculty Faculty

InteractionInteraction

NSSE Scalets and ModulesNSSE Scalets and Modules

• Course ChallengeCourse Challenge• WritingWriting• Higher-Order Higher-Order

Thinking SkillsThinking Skills• Integrative LearningIntegrative Learning• Active Learning Active Learning • Collaborative Collaborative

LearningLearning• Course InteractionCourse Interaction

• Out-of-Class Out-of-Class InteractionInteraction

• Information Information TechnologyTechnology

• Diversity ExperienceDiversity Experience• Support for Student Support for Student

SuccessSuccess• Interpersonal Interpersonal

EnvironmentEnvironment

Grades, persistence, student Grades, persistence, student satisfaction, and engagement satisfaction, and engagement go hand in handgo hand in hand

Behold the Behold the conditionalconditional, , compensatorycompensatory effects of engagement effects of engagement

Faculty Survey of Faculty Survey of Student EngagementStudent Engagement

(pronounced “fessie”)

FSSE measures FSSE measures faculty faculty expectations and expectations and activities related activities related to student to student engagement in engagement in effective effective educational educational practicespractices

Prompt FeedbackPrompt Feedback

FACULTY gave prompt FACULTY gave prompt feedback often or very feedback often or very oftenoften

STUDENTS received prompt STUDENTS received prompt feedback often or very oftenfeedback often or very often

88%88% // 90%90%

Lower Lower DivisionDivision

Upper Upper DivisionDivision

53%53% // 63%63%

11stst yr. yr. StudentsStudents SeniorsSeniors

Faculty Priorities and Faculty Priorities and Student EngagementStudent Engagement

AVGAVG STUDENTSTUDENT

AVGAVG FACULTYFACULTY AcadAcad emicemic cchallhall engeenge

ActAct iveive--ccollabollab

Diversity Diversity eexperiencesxperiences

StuStudentdent --ffacacultyulty

AAccadademicemic challchall engeenge emphemph asisasis

ActAct iveive--collabcollab practicespractices

EmphEmph asisasis on diversityon diversity experiencesexperiences

EmphEmph asisasis on on hhigherigher orderorder thinkingthinking

ImpImportanceortance enrichingenriching ededucuc eexpxperienceseriences

What is CLASSE?What is CLASSE?

Classroom Survey of Student Engagement

A two-part survey instrument that enables one to compare what engagement practices faculty particularly value and perceive important in a designated class with how frequently students report these practices occurring in the class.

Frequency (Student Ratings)

Imp

ort

ance

(Fac

ult

y R

atin

gs)

Quadrant Analysis

Very Important or Important to Faculty

Somewhat Important or Not Important to Faculty

Very Important or Important to Faculty

Somewhat Important or Not Important to Faculty

Below Average Student Frequency

Below Average Student Frequency

Above Average Student Frequency

Above Average Student Frequency

?

?

Opportunities for Improvement

28

Very Important or Important for FacultyBelow Average Student Frequency (<2.5)

( Q2 ) Participated in class discussion (= 2.40)

( Q7 ) Review class notes before class (= 1.97)

(Q10) Attend review session (= 1.57)

(Q11) Email instructor (= 2.00)

(Q12) Discuss ideas w instructor outside of class (= 2.40)

(Q13) Discuss grades/assignm w instr during office hrs (= 1.86)

(Q15) Work with classmates on projects during class (= 2.11)

(Q20) Incorporate ideas from different courses (= 2.21)

(Q25) Course emphasis on making judgments (= 2.09)

Very Important or Important for FacultyAbove Average Student Frequency (>2.5)

(Q 1 ) Ask questions in class (= 2.57)

(Q 3 ) Take class notes (= 3.63)(Q 4 ) Attend class (= 3.23)

(Q 5 ) Come to class prepared (= 2.29)

(Q14) Prompt/informative feedback (= 3.20)

(Q22) Coursework emphasis on memorization (= 3.29)

(Q23) Coursework emphasis on analyzing elements of an idea (= 3.37)

(Q26) Coursework emphasis on applying concepts and theories (=3.34)

(Q27) Assign multiple tasks requiring >hour to complete (= 2.83)

(Q30) Challenging examinations (= 3.49)

(Q31) Perceive the need to work harder (= 2.54)

Somewhat Important or Not Important for Faculty Below Average Student Frequency (<2.5)

( Q6 ) Prepare 2 or more drafts of a paper/assignment (= 1.83)

( Q8 ) Used email to discuss assignment w classmates (= 1.68) ( Q9 ) Participated in a service learning project (= 1.63)

(Q16) Work with classmates on assign outside of class (= 2.40) (Q17) Participated in study partnerships (= 1.97) (Q19) Include diverse perspectives in making points (=1.37) (Q21) Coursework emphasis integrating ideas (= 1.86)

(Q28) Spend more than 3 hours preparing for class (= 2.37)

(Q29) Wrote papers of more than 5 pages in length (= 1.17)

Somewhat Important or Not Important for FacultyAbove Average Student Frequency (>2.5)

(Q18) Discussed ideas from class with others (= 2.57)

(Q24) Coursework emphasis on synthesis (=2.60)

Frequency (Student Ratings)

Imp

ort

ance

(Fac

ult

y R

atin

gs)

Engineering Course Quadrant Analysis

For Information about CLASSEFor Information about CLASSE

Bob Smallwood, Ph.D.Assistant to the Provost for AssessmentUniversity of Alabama125 Russell HallBox 870363Tuscaloosa, Al 35487(205) 348 [email protected]

Student Engagement and Student Success: WHAT WE’RE LEARNING

Redesign Alliance, 2008

Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNING

#1 Engagement matters

…for community college students in particular

…and it matters even more for some groups of students

Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE’RE LEARNING

#2 Intentionality matters…

In community colleges especially, engagement is unlikely to happen by accident.

It has to happen by design.

Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNING

#3 We must engage students early and often.

New from CCSSE:

…the Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE)

Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNINGIn focus groups with students, what do they typically report as the most important factor in keeping them in school, persisting toward their goals?

#4 Relationships matter

“The compensatory effect”

i.e., where there are differences in engagement between “high-risk” groups and their comparison groups (academically under-prepared students, students of color, first generation students, nontraditional college age students) --- the high-risk students are more engaged.

Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNING

#5 Effective Developmental Education Matters Hugely

• Data points

• Academic policy and support services

• How we teach



Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNING# 6 Focused, sustained efforts, targeted to significant numbers of students, can produce real improvements in student engagement, learning, persistence, and academic attainment.



Redesign Alliance

WHAT WE'RE LEARNINGStudent Engagement By Design

• Kingsborough Community College

• Valencia Community College

• Tallahassee Community College/

Surry Community College

• All Florida Community Colleges



peter ewell george kuh kay mcclenney carol twigg national center for academic transformation 2 nd...

Documents