28
ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS 2005 Findings

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

2005 Findings

Page 2: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

AcknowledgmentsTo the students … those who learn from us andthose who teach us; those so quick we struggle tokeep up and those who struggle because wemove too quickly; those who know exactly wherethey’re headed, and those who still believe thatthe only reason they’re in college is becausesomeone made a terrible, wonderful mistake.

To those who skip class to care for a sick child,run to class because the subway was late, orsimply march to a different drummer; to thosewho challenge us and those whose couragetouches our souls.

To each and every student, we say “thank you.”We are thankful to know them, even if just a little.And we are grateful to them for the opportunity,with their participation and sacrifice and hardwork, to make good on America’s promise.

To all community college people — faculty,administrators, presidents — who daily undertakewhat should be recognized as some of the mostimportant work in America, thank you. If we keepour promises, we will be indispensably helpful inensuring that America keeps hers.

— Kay McClenney

From Keeping America’s Promise: Challenges forCommunity Colleges (2004)

Partially supported by grants from

The Houston Endowment, Inc.

Lumina Foundation for Education

MetLife Foundation

Co-sponsored by

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching

The Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning

Page 3: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Contents

Students Who Challenge the Odds 2

Characteristics and Challenges of Community College Students 4

A Closer Look at High-Risk Students 5

Academically Underprepared Students: Investments with High Dividends

Students of Color: The Women and the Men

First-Generation Students: An Opportunity To Raise Aspirations

Students 25 and Older: More Focus and Engagement, Particularly for Women

Part-Time Students: Now You See Them … 12

The CCSSE Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice 14

Reaching for Excellence 15

Active and Collaborative Learning

Student Effort

Academic Challenge

Student-Faculty Interaction

Support for Learners

CCFSSE: A First Look 20

Through the Eyes of Faculty Members

In the Eye of the Beholder

Making the Most of All Faculty Members’ Time

Overview of 2005 CCSSE Respondents 23

CCSSE National Advisory Board 24

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

2005 FindingsH1

Page 4: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

AS THE RESULTS OF BOTH SURVEYS

DEMONSTRATE, using data to assess the student experience provides powerful,and sometimes surprising, results. Afterall, our personal data — each person’sobservations and individual experiences— provide anecdotal information thatdoes not necessarily reflect the experi-ence of all, or even most, students. Onlysystematically collected data can help usunderstand the typical student experi-ence, and that understanding is essentialfor any institution seeking improvementin student learning, persistence, andcompletion of academic goals.

This year’s CCSSE report gives a voice tocommunity college students, particularlythose who have to overcome the greatestodds to complete their education. Thereare consistent, unacceptable gapsbetween outcomes for high-risk studentsand their peers. To better understandthese gaps — and, even more important,to give colleges tools to address them —

CCSSE has looked at findings for aca-demically underprepared students,students of color, first-generation stu-dents, nontraditional college-agelearners, and part-time students.

The 2005 CCSSE data show that whenthere are differences in engagementbetween low- and high-risk students, thestudents typically described as high-risk— including academically underpreparedstudents, students of color, first-generation students, and nontraditional-age learners — are more engaged in theircollege experience than their peers. Forexample, they are less likely to come toclass unprepared, they interact more frequently with instructors outside theclassroom, and they use support servicesmore often.

On the other hand, many of these stu-dents have lower aspirations and —especially in the case of academicallyunderprepared students, students ofcolor, and low-income students — show

Students Who Challenge the Odds

Each year, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)presents the results of its annual survey. These results give community colleges objective and relevant data about students’ experiences at theircolleges so they can better understand how effectively they are engagingtheir students and identify areas for improvement.

This year, the CCSSE report also includes results of the first administrationof the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE),which provides insights into faculty perceptions and practices. Becausemany items on CCSSE and CCFSSE are aligned, the report includes side-by-side views of faculty members’ and students’ responses.Lori Gates

Parkland College (IL)

Lori Gates, a 43-year-old first-generationstudent, lives with her husband, 17-year-old son, and mother-in-law. She attendsschool part-time and works 20 hours perweek at Parkland’s adult re-entry center.

Gates praises Parkland for catering to allstudents — younger, older, those new tothe school, and those ready to graduate.“They have a good academic counselingcenter and an adult re-entry center thathelps adult students get restarted,” sheexplains. “At these centers, they give youinformation about what courses to take,and they address specific needs, like mytesting anxiety.”

Gates is working toward an associatedegree in accounting and plans to earn abachelor’s degree in business. She hasbeen consistently enrolled in college since2000, more than 20 years after she firstbegan college. “Like a lot of young kids, Idropped out of college after I met andmarried my husband. I had a steady job,and I worked my way up through 12years,” she says. “Then when I startedlooking for a job, I realized that a lot ofplaces don’t want 12 years of experience.They want a piece of paper showing thatyou know what you’re talking aboutbecause you studied it.”

H2

Page 5: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

less successful outcomes in terms oflower grades and lower persistence rates.In other words, they are working harder,but achieving lower results.

At first glance, these findings may beunexpected. After all, a large andgrowing body of evidence shows a posi-tive correlation between studentengagement and student outcomes.

But a closer look suggests that theCCSSE data are more provocative thansurprising. Consider these points:

1. Only about one-half of communitycollege students return to college fortheir second year of study, and far toomany leave before completing theirfirst semester. High-risk students,moreover, drop out at a higher ratethan their peers. Underprepared students (those who require develop-mental education), for example, aremore likely to drop out in the firstsemester and less likely to return fortheir second semester. Drop-outrates, moreover, grow in proportionto the number of developmentalcourses the students need.

2. It is very likely that for some high-risk students, even the most engagingeducational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,personal, and work-related challengesthey face.

3. Given the positive, well-documentedrelationship between engagement andoutcomes, we might speculate thatamong high-risk students, the mostengaged are more likely, in general, tostay in college, whereas the leastengaged are more likely to be amongthose who drop out in the firstsemester. If this is the case, theCCSSE results reflect the views ofthe generally more engaged high-riskstudents. Alternatively, we mightspeculate that high-risk students areless prepared for college and there-fore must be more engaged to persistin their studies — and to achievegoals that lower-risk students canreach with less effort and engage-ment. Whether these speculations areaccurate is an issue for continuingstudy and analysis.

The inescapable conclusion from thedata, however, is that where there aredifferences in engagement levelsbetween low- and high-risk students, thecommunity college students we normallydescribe as high-risk generally are moreengaged than their peers. This point hassignificant implications for communitycolleges and their students. These resultsprovide insight into how community colleges can help more students — high-risk, low-risk, and everyone in between— stick with their studies until theyachieve their educational goals.

2005 Findings

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

Research shows that the more activelyengaged students are — with collegefaculty and staff, with other students, andwith the subject matter they study — themore likely they are to learn and to stay incollege until they achieve their academicgoals.* Student engagement, therefore, is avaluable yardstick for assessing whether,and to what extent, an institution’s educa-tional practices are likely to producesuccessful results — more students acrossall groups learning at higher levels andachieving their academic goals.

A growing body of research has identifiedinstitutional practices and student behaviorsthat promote student engagement, and theCCSSE survey focuses on these elements ofstudents’ experiences. CCSSE works withparticipating colleges to administer thesurvey, which measures students’ levels ofengagement in a variety of areas. The colleges then receive their survey results,along with guidance and analysis they canuse to improve their programs and servicesfor students.

All CCSSE work is grounded in researchabout what helps improve student outcomes.CCSSE results are public and available atwww.ccsse.org.

*Kuh, G.D., The National Survey of Student Engagement:

Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric

Properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for

Postsecondary Research and Planning, 2001.

Pascarella, E., and P. Terenzini, How College Affects

Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, 2005.

For additional references on student engagement, visit

www.ccsse.org.

Why Student Engagement Matters

H3

Page 6: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

Characteristics and Challenges of Community CollegeStudentsCOMMUNITY COLLEGES EDUCATE a diverse mix of students with dramatically varyinggoals; significant demands on their time; and a range of personal, academic, andfinancial challenges.

Community CollegeStudents Contendwith CompetingPrioritiesStudents’ commitments to work andfamily mean that they spend limited timeon campus — making it both more diffi-cult and essential for colleges to engagethem when they are there.

Most Students Are Enrolled Part-Time

60%

Source: IPEDS, Fall 2003.

Most Students Work

57%

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Many Students Care for Dependents

36%

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Most Student Commute, Many SpendSignificant Time Commuting

21%

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Students’ Goals

Indicate which of the following are your reasons/goals for attending this college.

Complete a certificate program

Obtain an associate degree

Transfer to a four-year college or university

Obtain or update job-related skills

Self-improvement/personal enjoyment

Change careers

29%

57%

48%

41%

40%

30%

19%

21%

21%

26%

34%

16%

52%

23%

31%

33%

26%

54%

Primary goal Secondary goal Not a goal

Reasons Students Might Not Return to College

How likely is it that the following issues would cause you to withdraw from class or from this college?

Transfer to a four-year college or university

Lack of finances

Working full-time

Caring for dependents

Academically unprepared

47%

45%

37%

29%

17%

Students responding “likely” or “very likely”

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Students’ Plans after theCurrent Semester

When asked when they plan totake classes at this collegeagain, 23% had no plan to returnor were uncertain about theirfuture plans.

I have no current plan to return

I will accomplish mygoal(s) during this termand will not be returning

Uncertain

Within the next 12 months

18%

66%

11%

5%

Part-time students

Students who workmore than 20 hoursper week

Students who spend11 or more hoursper week caring fordependents

Students who spendsignificant time (sixto 20 hours perweek) commuting toand from class (93%of all studentscommute at leastone hour per week)

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

H4

Page 7: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

A Closer Look at High-Risk StudentsIT IS IMPOSSIBLE to get a clear picture ofengagement for all students without dis-aggregating the data — that is, breakingit down into student groups (e.g., racialand ethnic groups, developmental stu-dents, part-time students, and so on).Comparing engagement and outcomesfor various student groups, particularlyhigh-risk student groups, is the only wayto evaluate whether all students areengaging in their education at similarlyhigh levels.

Looking at student engagement forvarious groups of at-risk students oftenreveals gaps in engagement and per-formance that merit further attention —and can help colleges identify the bestengagement strategies for their students.This type of analysis is critical for com-munity colleges that want to improveoutcomes for those who bring thegreatest challenges to college with them— and who stand to gain the most fromtheir community college experience.

Students are considered high risk if theyexhibit several factors that are shown tojeopardize educational persistence andattainment. Students attending commu-nity colleges are three to four timesmore likely than their counterparts infour-year colleges and universities toreflect four or more of the key riskfactors. The risk factors are:

H being academically underprepared forcollege-level work;

H not entering college directly afterhigh school;

H attending college part-time;

H being a single parent;

H being financially independent (i.e.,students who rely on their ownincome or savings and whose parentsare not sources of income formeeting college costs);

H caring for children at home;

H working more than 30 hours perweek; and

H being a first-generation collegestudent.

The analyses reported on the followingpages show intriguing patterns ofengagement for selected groups of at-risk students. It is important to note,however, that although this report con-siders the risk factors one at a time,students often experience them in com-binations. And combining the riskfactors multiplies students’ risks of notachieving their educational goals. Finally,additional insights into these findingswill be gained from further study,including the use of statistical controls.

Academically UnderpreparedStudents: Investments with HighDividends

More than half (53%) of CCSSE respon-dents report that they have taken or planto take a developmental math, reading,or writing course, which indicates thatthey are not academically prepared for

college-level work. By several measures,these students are more engaged withtheir education than their academicallyprepared peers. Academically under-prepared students are more likely to:

H Talk about career plans with aninstructor or advisor often or veryoften (27% vs. 21% of academicallyprepared students).

H Work harder than they thought theycould to meet an instructor’s expecta-tions often or very often (53% vs. 43%of academically prepared students).

H Prepare two or more drafts of apaper before turning it in often orvery often (56% vs. 42% of academi-cally prepared students).

H Write more papers or reports (29%vs. 23% of academically prepared stu-dents report writing 11 or morepapers during the school year).

In addition, these students report thattheir colleges help them develop theskills and abilities they need to succeed.Academically underprepared studentsreport that their colleges:

H Encourage them, either “quite a bit”or “very much,” to spend significantamounts of time studying (75% vs.64% of academically prepared stu-dents), help them cope with non-academic responsibilities (28% vs.20% of academically prepared stu-dents), and provide the financialsupport they need to afford theireducation (51% vs. 39% of academi-cally prepared students).

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

2005 FindingsH5

Page 8: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H6For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

H Helped them, either “quite a bit” or“very much,” write more clearly andeffectively (66% vs. 48% of academi-cally prepared students), speak moreclearly and effectively (60% vs. 44%of academically prepared students),think critically and analytically(70% vs. 61% of academically pre-pared students), solve numericalproblems (60% vs. 44% of academi-cally prepared students), and developclearer career goals (60% vs. 48% ofacademically prepared students).

Academically underprepared studentsare significantly more likely to use andbe satisfied with student services,including academic advising/planning,career counseling, tutoring, skill labs,computer labs, and financial aidadvising. Finally, they report lowergrades overall; in CCSSE researchstudies, student records substantiatethese reports.

Reflections on Results

In summary, these results indicate thatacademically underprepared students, ingeneral, are exerting more effort, experi-encing greater academic challenge,experiencing more support from theircollege, using college services moreextensively, and reporting more aca-demic gain than their more adequatelyprepared peers. In other words, these

students are connecting with their col-leges in ways that may help compensatefor the gaps in their previous educationalexperiences.

Almost 50% of all first-time communitycollege students (and in some settingssignificantly more) are assessed asunderprepared for the academicdemands of college-level work. Collegesthat design strategies to retain these stu-dents find that effective remediationpays high dividends. First, students whobenefit from effective developmentaleducation have the opportunity to besuccessful in subsequent college-levelstudies — an opportunity that would notexist without developmental education.

Second, at its best, developmental edu-cation serves its intended purpose:leveling the playing field so that studentswho begin in developmental courseshave at least the same chances of com-pleting a degree or transferring as theirpeers who began their studies in college-level courses.*

Finally, students who successfully com-plete remedial courses tend to becomeproductively employed: 16% as profes-sionals; 54% in mid-level, white-collar, ortechnical positions; and 20% as high-skill, blue-collar workers. Only 9%remain in unskilled or low-skill jobs.**

Mike KlimanskyEl Paso Community College (TX)

Mike Klimansky, a 20-year-old full-timestudent, plans to transfer to the Universityof Texas at El Paso. He started his work atEl Paso Community College with develop-mental courses, and he now is doingcollege-level work in all of his classesexcept for mathematics.

Asked about his experience at El PasoCommunity College, he says, “It is ablessing to be there, to be able to get myeducation.”

Klimansky credits his instructors and thecollege’s writing center and other supportservices for his success at the college.“The way Mr. Casey taught [English]helped me learn to write essays,” herecalls. “I learned more from him in onesemester than in all my years of English inhigh school.”

*Roueche, J.E., E. Ely, and S.D. Roueche, In Pursuit of Excellence. Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2001.

**McCabe, R.H., No One to Waste: A Report to Public Decision Makers and Community College Leaders. Washington, DC: CommunityCollege Press, 2000.

Page 9: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Students of Color: The Women andthe Men

Almost one-quarter (24%) of 2005CCSSE respondents are black, Hispanic,or Native American, and among therespondents, black women outnumberblack men by a factor of two to one.These percentages reflect the CCSSEcollege population overall.

A comparison of students of color (black,Hispanic, and Native American students)and white students shows little differencein engagement on survey items related toactive and collaborative learning,student-faculty interaction, or studenteffort. Students of color, however, reportmore academic gain in several areasduring their college experience and weremore likely to credit their college forhelping them achieve that gain. Forexample, looking at responses of “quite abit” or “very much”:

H 65% of black, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican students vs. 54% of whitestudents say their college experiencehelped them write more clearly andeffectively.

H 62% of black, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican students vs. 49% of whitestudents say their college experience

helped them speak more clearly andeffectively.

H 59% of black, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican students vs. 50% of whitestudents say their college experiencehelped them learn to solve numer-ical problems.

H 61% of black, Hispanic, and NativeAmerican students vs. 52% of whitestudents say their college experiencehelped them develop clearer careergoals.

Students of color also are more likely touse and be satisfied with student serv-ices, including academic advising/planning, tutoring, skill labs, and finan-cial aid advising. However, they reportlower grades overall: 58% of black,Hispanic, and Native American studentsvs. 72% of white students report overallgrade averages of A or B.

Examining Engagement Differences amongBlack Students

The crisis in black men’s educationalsuccess — in terms of the relatively lownumbers of black men who enroll in andcomplete college — is well documented.The CCSSE data reveal intriguingengagement differences for black men,

who, although increasingly underrepre-sented among the ranks of collegestudents, are more engaged in severalareas than either black women or stu-dents who are not black.

For example, black men are more likelythan black women to work with instruc-tors on activities other than courseworkoften or very often (14% of black men vs.10% of black women) and participate incollege-sponsored activities (28% ofblack men vs. 16% of black womenreport spending between one and 20hours per week on these activities).Black men also are more engaged thannonblack students in these areas.

In addition, black men are more likelythan either black women or nonblackstudents to report that their collegehelps them cope with nonacademicresponsibilities and provides the supportthey need to thrive socially.

Black women, however, are moreengaged than black men in several areas.Black women are more likely to:

H Discuss ideas from readings orclasses with others outside of classoften or very often (57% of blackwomen vs. 45% of black men).

2005 FindingsH7

Reginald WrightSouthern University at Shreveport (LA)

Nursing student Reginald Wright is 39 years old, retired from the U.S. Air Force, and living with his wife andtwo children. He appreciates his college for its small class sizes; the services it provides, including informa-tion that helped him apply for financial aid; and its instructors.

“Dr. Robinson encouraged group study. She always could tell who was studying and who was not,” hesays. “Every day she would ask us questions — the ones who did the work were able to respond.” Infact, Wright was so pleased with Dr. Robinson that after taking her microbiology class, he enrolled inanatomy and physiology because he liked her teaching.

Wright offers this formula for success in college: “Go to school every day. Sit in front of the class. Askquestions.”

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

Page 10: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

H Use the Internet or instant mes-saging to work on an assignmentoften or very often (60% of blackwomen vs. 52% of black men).

H Find their exams challenging (42%of black women vs. 31% of black menrate their exams a 6 or 7 on a seven-point scale of difficulty).

H Report that their college encouragedthem to spend significant timestudying (80% of black women vs.73% of black men say “quite a bit” or“very much”).

H Have plans to continue theirstudies (when asked when they planto take classes at their college again,24% of black women vs. 31% of blackmen had no plan to return to theircollege or were uncertain about theirfuture plans).

Black women are more likely to spend 30 hours or more per week caring fordependents (42% of black women vs.18% of black men) and to spend slightlymore time working for pay.

Black women also spend more timecaring for dependents and working forpay — and are more engaged in the areas described above — than nonblackstudents.

Reflections on Results

Worthy of note is the distinctionbetween the forms of engagement forblack women and black men. Thewomen’s experiences appear to be moreacademically oriented, whereas the men’sconnections emphasize out-of-class andsocial activities. While black women’stime spent caring for family and workingmay partially explain why they are notinvolved in more on-campus activities,additional research would be needed toexplore the reasons for the differencesbetween black women and men.

In the meantime, community collegesmay do well to build on black men’s out-of-class interests, connect those intereststo the classroom, and engage them moreeffectively in the earliest weeks of theircollege experience to increase thenumbers of black men who persist andsucceed.

Silvia CostaLaGuardia Community College (NY)

First-generation student Silvia Costa works40 hours per week off campus as ababysitter and attends college full-time. “Icame to this country six years ago, and Icame to college only to learn English in anon-credit ESL [English as a SecondLanguage] class,” she recalls. “But then Itook the test to get into college, and noweverything in my life has changed.”

Costa, who is studying physical therapy, isgrateful to her instructors for teaching herthe subject matter, helping her gain valu-able time management skills, andencouraging her to pursue her studies.

“I am taking a freshman seminar classabout time management, and the thingsI’m learning in that class helped mechange and grow,” she says. “I receivedan achievement award for a library infor-mation class. I was so proud on awardsnight to get an award at the beginning ofmy college experience.”

H8

“CCSSE acts as an all-important barometer for community college faculty whowish to remain as effective as possible in the classroom.”

KEVIN JOSEPH HALESAssociate Professor of History

Parkland College (IL)CCSSE participant, 2003, 2005

Silvia Costa and Scott White, coordinator ofAccess Services and instructor of Silvia’s libraryinformation course.

Page 11: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

50%42%

80%74%

74%

77%

71%

71%

54%41%

63%

62%

First-Generation Students: AnOpportunity To Raise Aspirations

More than one-third (37%) of 2005CCSSE respondents are first-generationstudents — students whose parents hadno college experience. When comparedwith students who had at least one parentwho attended college, first-generationstudents spend comparable hoursworking and preparing for class. Theyspend significantly more time, however,caring for dependents (33% of first-generation students vs. 22% of other stu-dents spend more than 30 hours a weekcaring for dependents). They are signifi-cantly less likely to aspire to transfer to afour-year college or university (38% offirst-generation students vs. 26% of otherstudents say that transferring is not agoal), and they are more likely to aspireto earn an associate degree or certificateand improve job skills.

First-generation students, however, aremore engaged than their peers in severalareas. They are more likely to:

H Come to class prepared (36% offirst-generation students vs. 28% ofother students say they never cometo class unprepared).

H Attend class (58% of first-generationstudents vs. 44% of other students saythey never skip class).

H Find their exams challenging (40%of first-generation students vs. 32% ofother students rate their exams a 6 or7 on a seven-point scale of difficulty).

First-generation students also use andare satisfied with financial aid advisingmore than their peers. Half of first-generation students (50%) vs. 40% ofother students use this service often orvery often; 56% of first-generation stu-dents vs. 46% of other students are veryor somewhat satisfied with this service.

Reflections on Results

There is not a notable differencebetween first-generation students’ andother students’ use of career counseling,but the overall use of this service is low.However, engagement strategies thatencourage students to set and pursuegoals, such as academic and careeradvising, can positively affect studentretention and, ultimately, studentsuccess. These services also can serve toincrease students’ aspirations. Collegesthat seek to improve outcomes for first-generation students might considermaking academic and career counselingmandatory or building these servicesinto classroom activities so that theybecomes inescapable elements of stu-dents’ college experience.

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

First-Generation Students’ Goals(Primary or Secondary)

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

First-generation students

Other students

Complete a certificate program

Obtain an associate degree

Transfer to a four-year college or university

Obtain or update job-related skills

Self-improvement/personal enjoyment

Change careers

H9

2005 Findings

“CCSSE keeps us in touch with our students.”

JULIE PACEDean of Service and Performance Excellence

Northwest Vista College (TX)CCSSE participant, 2002–2005

Page 12: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H10

Students 25 and Older: More Focusand Engagement, Particularly forWomen

More than one-third (37%) of CCSSErespondents are over age 24, and thereare dramatic engagement differencesbetween these nontraditional-age stu-dents and their traditional-age (18- to24-year-old) peers. Nontraditional-agestudents are more likely to:

H Ask questions in class or con-tribute to class discussions often orvery often (73% vs. 59% of traditional-age students).

H Come to class prepared (42% vs.22% of traditional-age students saythey never come to class unprepared).

H Attend class (67% vs. 36% of traditional-age students say theynever skip class).

H Report receiving prompt feedbackfrom instructors often or very often(61% vs. 51% of traditional-age students).

H Find their exams challenging(45% vs. 26% of traditional-age stu-dents rated their exams a 6 or 7 on aseven-point scale of difficulty).

These older learners report more favor-able relationships with both instructorsand administrative personnel, and theyspend more time preparing for class(31% of nontraditional-age students vs.20% of traditional-age students reportspending at least 11 hours per weekstudying). They also spend more time

caring for dependents (44% vs. 12% oftraditional-age students report spendingmore than 30 hours per week caring fordependents).

A Closer Look at Women 25 and Older

Results for one particular group of non-traditional-age learners — women whoare 25 and older — are noteworthy.Almost a quarter (23%) of CCSSErespondents are nontraditional-agewomen, and their survey responsesreflect the differences for all non-traditional-age students described above.In addition, nontraditional-age womenare more engaged than other students(men and traditional-age women).Nontraditional-age women:

H Are significantly more likely thanother students to report that theircollege experience helped them “quitea bit” or “very much” to think criti-cally and analytically (72% vs. 64%),acquire job or work-related skills(57% vs. 48%), and learn more effec-tively on their own (74% vs. 66%).

H Report higher grades (75% of non-traditional-age women vs. 63% ofother students report overall gradeaverages of A or B).

H Are more likely to have plans tocontinue their studies the followingsemester (17% of nontraditional-agewomen vs. 25% of other students saythey have no plan to return to collegethe next semester or are uncertain oftheir plans).

72%64%

64%

57%48%

74%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Nontraditional-Age Female Students’Growing Skills

Nontraditional-age femalestudents responding “quitea bit” or “very much”

Other studentsresponding “quite abit” or “very much”

Thinking critically and analytically

Acquiring job or work-related skills

Learning more effectively on your own

0 20 40 60 80 100

86%

48%50%

79%

76%

79%

71%

72%

64%37%

66%

60%

Nontraditional-Age Female Students’ Goals(Primary or Secondary)

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Nontraditional-age femalestudents

Other students

Complete a certificate program

Obtain an associate degree

Transfer to a four-year college or university

Obtain or update job-related skills

Self-improvement/personal enjoyment

Change careers

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

How much has your experience at this college contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personaldevelopment in the following areas?

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Page 13: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Nontraditional-age women, however,indicate that they are more likely towithdraw from college for financialreasons (54% reported that they arelikely or very likely to withdraw forfinancial reasons, compared to 44% ofother students). They are significantlyless likely to aspire to transfer to a four-year college or university (40% of non-traditional-age women students vs. 24%of other students say that transferring isnot a goal), and they are more likely tostate changing careers as a goal (64% of nontraditional-age women students vs.37% of other students).

Finally, more than half (55%) of non-traditional-age women (vs. 15% of otherstudents) spend more than 30 hours per

week caring for dependents who livewith them. Despite this time commit-ment, 13% of nontraditional-age femalestudents — compared with only 6% ofother students — spend 21 or morehours per week preparing for class.

Reflections on Results

With age comes focus. Students who are25 and older — women in particular —appear to have more clearly defined goalsand better-developed study habits thantheir peers. They tend to spend moretime on task and to be more active inclassrooms — characteristics that add totheir value as peer mentors and membersof study groups or project teams.

These nontraditional-age women students, however, would benefit fromservices that seek to raise their aspira-tions so they get more out of theintensive effort they devote to theirstudies. Other students might benefitfrom engagement strategies, such as academic advising and skill labs, thatwould instill the focus and goals thatnontraditional-age female students bringto their college experience. As with allengagement efforts, more communitycollege students are likely to benefitfrom these strategies if they are, at leastin part, integrated into course design.

2005 FindingsH11

Maria IhrabiSinclair Community College (OH)

Maria Ihrabi, a 32-year-old first-generation college student, is in her first term of community college. Shelives with her husband and three children, ages 5, 6, and 10.

As she finds her way around the campus and tries to get settled, Ihrabi appreciates any efforts to helpher meet other students, particularly other new students. “In my business class, the instructor opened upour communication by breaking us into three small groups and giving us the task of answering a questionas a group,” she says. “I enjoyed this because I got to talk to, learn from, and work with other students.”

Sinclair also has raised Ihrabi’s aspirations. “I want to get a degree,” she says with conviction. “At first, Ionly wanted some education, but now I want a degree. I want to set high expectations for my kids.”

“At Estrella Mountain Community College, participation in CCSSEhas enlivened campuswide discussion and strengthened our

commitment to building a climate for improving educational effectiveness and the overall success of our students.”

HOMERO LOPEZ, PH.D.President

Estrella Mountain Community College (AZ)CCSSE participant, 2004

Note: This analysis of nontraditional-age women and other students excludes students who already hold an associate degree or higher(10% of the 2005 survey respondents) to focus the findings on students working toward a degree or certificate.

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

Page 14: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H12For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

Part-Time Students: NowYou See Them …NATIONALLY, NEARLY TWO-THIRDS

of community college students attendschool part-time, and these part-timestudents are black, white, Asian,Hispanic, and international; they are oldand young; they are academically well-prepared and underprepared for college.Most of them work; many care fordependents; some endure long com-mutes. As a result, many part-timestudents come to campus for theirclasses and then leave immediately toattend to other responsibilities.

Survey results viewed in terms of enroll-ment status provide insights that canhelp community colleges better under-stand — and address — the challenges ofengaging part-time students.

Part-time students are significantly lesslikely than full-time students to:

H Make a class presentation often orvery often (22% vs. 33% of full-timestudents). In addition, 41% of part-time students vs. 23% of full-timestudents say they never made a classpresentation.

H Work on a project that required inte-grating ideas or information fromvarious sources often or very often(52% vs. 68% of full-time students).

H Work with other students on proj-ects during class often or very often(42% vs. 50% of full-time students).

H Work with other students outsideof class to prepare class assignmentsoften or very often (16% vs. 25% offull-time students).

H Prepare two or more drafts of apaper before turning it in often orvery often (46% vs. 56% of full-timestudents).

H Use e-mail to communicate withan instructor often or very often(32% vs. 45% of full-time students).

H Discuss grades or assignments withan instructor often or very often (39%vs. 50% of full-time students).

H Talk about career plans with aninstructor often or very often (19% vs.29% of full-time students).

Significantly more part-time studentstake evening or weekend classes (46% of part-time students vs. 12% of full-timestudents say they most frequently enrollin such classes). And part-time studentsare more likely to attend class — 54% ofpart-time students vs. 41% of full-timestudents report that they never skipclass. But they are less likely to reportthat their college experience, either“quite a bit” or “very much,” helped them to:

H Write more clearly and effectively(55% of part-time vs. 64% of full-timestudents).

H Speak more clearly and effectively(49% of part-time vs. 58% of full-timestudents).

10.3

16.0

38.4

30.2 24.6

15.7

12.812.8

8.6

4.8

6.4

19.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1–14 15–29 30–44 45–60 morethan 60

Part-Time and Full-Time CCSSERespondents by Credit Hours Earnedat the College

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Total credit hours earned at the college

Perc

enta

ge o

f CCS

SEre

spon

dent

s

Note: This analysis of part- and full-time students excludes students who already hold an associate degree or higher (10% of the 2005survey respondents) to focus the findings on students working toward a degree or certificate.

A typical semester for a full-time student is 12–15credit hours. Sixty credits is the typical point at whichstudents obtain an associate degree. If all students whostarted college completed an associate degree or thefirst half of a bachelor’s degree, the line between oneand 60 credits would be flat.

Part-time students Full-time students

Page 15: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H Solve numerical problems (51% ofpart-time vs. 58% of full-time stu-dents).

H Gain information about careeropportunities (46% of part-time vs.54% of full-time students).

Part-time students also report less use ofand satisfaction with student services,including academic advising/planning,financial aid advising, and computer lab.

Reflections on Results

A concern raised by these findings isthat part-time students appear to haveeducational experiences that are qualita-tively different from those of theirfull-time peers. It is noteworthy, forexample, that part-time students engagein fewer collaborative practices and lessinteraction with faculty than do full-timestudents even within the classroomsetting. Ideally, part-time students wouldspend at least as great a proportion of

their in-classroom time making presen-tations or working with other studentson projects, and it is more likely thatthey would do so if such activities wereintentional features of their classes.

The finding that disproportionately highnumbers of part-time students takeevening and weekend classes, althoughnot surprising, may help explain the dif-ferences in part-time students’involvement in effective educationalpractice. But it also points to two relatedissues. First, in settings where eveningand weekend classes are predominantlytaught by adjunct faculty, colleges willrecognize from these results that thechallenge of engaging part-time studentsis related to the challenge of engagingpart-time faculty in the kinds of profes-sional development opportunities thatwill help them use more engaging strate-gies in the classroom. Second, collegesface the challenge of ensuring that aca-demic and student support services are

available at the times and places conven-ient to part-time students. Moreover,part-time students likely would benefitfrom academic advising and otherengagement strategies that wereinescapably built into coursework orinto the college intake and registrationprocesses.

As the data for part-time students indi-cate, engaging students who spendlimited time on campus may be colleges’most difficult engagement task. Giventhe number of part-time communitycollege students, however, it is likely thatefforts to engage and educate commu-nity college students will have limitedvalue if colleges cannot successfullyreach those who attend part-time.

2005 Findings

Elisa PlummerDona Ana Branch Community College — NMSU (NM)

Elisa Plummer, 39 and a part-time student, first started community college when her children wereyoung, but she stopped because of the demands on her time. Now that her children are 9, 14, and 15,she is determined to earn her degree no matter what it takes.

“English is my second language, so I have to work more,” she explains. “You don’t have any idea howdifficult it is when we’re barely able to speak the language and we’re taking college-level classes.” Shepraises the tutoring center, which provides support in both Spanish and English.

“Sometimes, when I’m doing a paper over and over and over — it has to be as good as the other stu-dents’ papers — I sometimes feel like I want to quit, but I’m not quitting,” she says fiercely. “I know I cando it if I just keep trying.”

“CCSSE enables us to identify ourstrengths, as well as those areas where

we need to create a sharper focus inorder to continually enhance student

retention and academic success.”

EBENEZER KOLAJODirector of Institutional Research

Cecil Community College (MD)CCSSE participant, 2004

H13

Page 16: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H14For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

The CCSSE Benchmarksof Effective EducationalPracticeBENCHMARKS ARE GROUPS OF CONCEPTU-ALLY RELATED SURVEY ITEMS that addresskey areas of student engagement.CCSSE’s five benchmarks denote areasthat educational research has shown tobe important in quality educational prac-tice, and they provide useful ways to lookat each college’s performance.

Community colleges use the benchmarksto compare their performance with thatof similar institutions and with the fullCCSSE population of community col-leges; compare their own performanceacross benchmarks and across time; andidentify areas in need of improvement.Because the results are public, bench-marks also can stimulate conversation —within colleges and among policymakers— about effective educational practices.

The CCSSE benchmarks are active andcollaborative learning, student effort,academic challenge, student-facultyinteraction, and support for learners.To see descriptions of the benchmarksor the specific survey items associatedwith each benchmark, visitwww.ccsse.org.

What Are Benchmark Scores?

Every college has a score for each bench-mark. These individual benchmarkscores were computed by averaging thescores on survey items that composethat benchmark. Benchmark scores arestandardized so that the mean — theaverage of all participating students —always is 50 and the standard deviationalways is 25.

A valuable use of benchmarks is to seean individual college’s deviation from themean — or better yet, its comparison toa standard higher than the mean. Thestandardized score provides an easy wayto assess whether an individual college isperforming above or below the mean(50) on each benchmark. The standard-ized scores make it possible for collegesto compare their own performanceacross benchmarks and with groups ofsimilar colleges.

Reaching for Excellence

Affirming the spirit of benchmarking, onthe following pages, CCSSE offers exam-ples of promising educational practicesat colleges that demonstrate outstandingperformance on particular benchmarks.These are examples of both innovativethinking and intentional engagement.CCSSE urges all participating colleges tocontinually ask whether current performance — both nationally and attheir colleges — is good enough and touse their data to make the most impor-tant comparison for themselves and theirstudents: where they are now, contrastedwith where they want to be.

CCSSE opposes using its data to rank colleges fora number of reasons.

H There is no single number that can

adequately — or accurately — describe a

college’s performance; most colleges will

perform relatively well on some benchmarks

and need improvement on others.

H Each community college’s performance

should be considered in terms of its

mission, institutional focus, and student

characteristics.

H Because of differences in these areas — and

variations in college resources — comparing

survey results between individual institutions

serves little constructive purpose and likely

will be misleading.

H Demographically, CCSSE member colleges

and their students are representative of the

national population of credit-enrolled commu-

nity college students. However, because of

the growing incidence of statewide participa-

tion in the survey, data in any given year will

reflect some states more extensively than

others.

H More important, the 257 CCSSE 2005

member colleges are a self-selected group.

Their choice to participate in the survey

demonstrates their interest in assessing and

improving their educational practices, and it

distinguishes them. Ranking within this group

of colleges — those willing to step up to

serious self-assessment and public reporting

— might discourage participation and cer-

tainly would paint an incomplete picture.

H Ranking does not serve a purpose related to

improving student outcomes. Improvement

over time — where a particular college is

now, compared with where it wants to be —

likely is the best gauge of a college’s efforts

to enhance student learning and persistence.

CCSSE Opposes Ranking

Page 17: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Reaching for Excellence:Active and CollaborativeLearningTHE FOLLOWING COLLEGES were amongthe top performers within their size cate-gory on the active and collaborativelearning benchmark. This list, presentedin alphabetical order without regard tosize, also indicates colleges that serve highproportions of at-risk students.

H Chandler-Gilbert CommunityCollege (AZ)

H El Paso Community College (TX)*+†H Guilford Technical Community

College (NC)*†H North Harris Montgomery

Community College District (TX)*†H Northwest Vista College (TX)*†H Skagit Valley College (WA)†H Southern University at Shreveport

(LA)*+†H Vermilion Community College (MN)†

Intentional Engagement Strategies

SKAGIT VALLEY COLLEGE (WA) requiresparticipation in a learning communityfor a transfer degree. In recent years, thecollege has seen an increasing number ofstudents, many of them Hispanic, whoare first-generation students and fromlow-income families. In response, facultymembers are employing strategies inlearning communities to help studentsunderstand the complexity of largercommunities, including members whooften are “invisible.” Last year, for

example, research conducted by studentsin ¡Viva! Mexican Voices/AmericanDreams (a learning community com-bining sociology and literature) includedintensive interviews with local commu-nity leaders and statewide Hispanicleaders.

Over the past decade, CHANDLER-GILBERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE (AZ)has emphasized faculty training in activeand collaborative learning for both resi-dential and adjunct faculty. Professionaldevelopment includes how to designlearning communities, actively engagestudents in group discussions, and movestudents into the community to partici-pate in service learning. First-, second-,and third-year faculty also are involvedin a learning community for faculty thatprovides mentoring and support focusedon improving teaching methods.

In NORTH HARRIS MONTGOMERY

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (TX),faculty are strongly encouraged to includecollaborative learning projects in theirclasses. Instructor-led discussion, hands-on projects, and group work are theprimary methods of instruction, ratherthan lectures. In most classrooms andlabs, faculty can access the Web, DVDs,CDs, and video at the touch of a buttonto use current events as teaching tools.Even the furniture at NHMCCD pro-motes group work and collaboration.Many classrooms have easily movabletables and chairs that can be arranged ina variety of configurations to allow stu-dents to work in groups during class.

Professors at SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY

AT SHREVEPORT (LA) provide a varietyof opportunities for student involvementin the total learning process. Theseexperiences include mutual probingquestions, innovative class presentationsand projects, activities such as a quizbowl, and book reviews. An activity thatinvolves the entire campus community is“The Scavenger Hunt,” sponsored by thelibrary, during which students are chal-lenged to locate information andartifacts of modern and historical naturearound the campus.

2005 Findings

*denotes minority-serving institutions (at least 25% of students are black, Hispanic, or Native American).

+denotes institutions that serve high proportions of first-generation students (at least 37% of students — the median for colleges included in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — are first-generation).

†denotes institutions that serve high proportions of academically underprepared students (at least 53% of students — the median for colleges included in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — needdevelopmental education in at least one area).

65%

26%

45%

21%

6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Key Findings for Active and Collaborative Learning

Asked questions in class or contributed toclass discussions

Made a class presentation

Worked with other students during class

Worked with other students outside of classto prepare class assignments

Participated in a community-based project aspart of a course

Students who often or very often ...

H15

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Page 18: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H16For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

Reaching for Excellence:Student EffortTHE FOLLOWING COLLEGES were amongthe top performers within their size cat-egory on the student effort benchmark.This list, presented in alphabetical orderwithout regard to size, also indicates col-leges that serve high proportions ofminority, first-generation, and academi-cally underprepared students.

H Community College of Denver(CO)*+†

H El Centro College (TX)*+†H El Paso Community College (TX)*+†H Georgia Perimeter College (GA)*H LaGuardia Community College

(NY)*+†H Paul D. Camp Community College

(VA)*+†H Southern University at Shreveport

(LA)*+†H Spokane Community College (WA)

Intentional Engagement Strategies

The Student Technology Services (STS)organization at EL PASO COMMUNITY

COLLEGE (TX) delivers quality com-puter and technology services tostudents, faculty, and staff — and pre-pares its student employees withprofessional and technical skills. STS,which is staffed and managed by stu-dents, has grown from four to 40students since it began in April 2002.

STS also has sent students to providesupport for the technology staff of the ElPaso Independent School District andAutotronic Control Corporation, andEPCC has hired a number of the STSemployees to fill positions at the college.

Through its Learning Success Services(LSS) area, COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF

DENVER (CO) provides tutoring servicesin math, English, reading, and English asa Second Language. In 2004, CCDtutoring labs provided about 199,000contact hours with students. During thespring semester, nearly 7,000 studentsaccessed services in one of the three LSSareas. LSS director Ken Swiney says,“One student told me he wouldn’t havepassed Math 030 without the tutor hehad over the summer. He had taken theclass twice before without passing it.”

Reaching for Excellence:Academic ChallengeTHE FOLLOWING COLLEGES were amongthe top performers within their size cat-egory on the academic challengebenchmark. This list, presented in alpha-betical order without regard to size, alsoindicates colleges that serve high propor-tions of minority, first-generation, andacademically underprepared students.

H El Paso Community College (TX)*+†H LaGuardia Community College

(NY)*+†H Mercy College of Health Sciences (IA)H Sinclair Community College (OH)†H Southern University at Shreveport

(LA)*+†H Spokane Community College (WA)H Tacoma Community College (WA)†H Wilbur Wright College (IL)*+†

56%

24%

69%

12%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Key Findings for Student Effort

Often or very often prepared two or more draftsof a paper or assignment before turning it in

Always came to class prepared*

Spent between one and 10 hours per weekpreparing for class

Spent at least 21 hours per week preparing forclass

Full-time students who ...

34%

31%

22%

13%

Key Findings for Academic Challenge

0–4 papers orreports

More than 20papers or reports 5–10 papers

or reports

11–20 papersor reports

Full-time students who wrote papers or reportsof any length during the year

*Note: This survey item asks students how often they“come to class without completing readings or assign-ments.” Responses of “Never” are reverse coded here.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Page 19: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Intentional Engagement Strategies

The Electronic Portfolio initiative atLAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (NY)provides students with a tool for col-lecting their academic work and theirreflections on their learning as well as forsharing their portfolios on the Internet.

Students begin posting work to theirePortfolios during their first year andrefine their presentations as they moveforward, continually reflecting on theprocess of growth and improvement.

On CCSSE questions related to the aca-demic challenge benchmark, studentswho developed ePortfolios report“working harder than they thought theycould,” “synthesizing and organizingideas in new ways,” and “making judg-ments about the value or soundness ofinformation” more frequently than theLaGuardia average.

At TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (WA),nursing students are well prepared tocare for future patients because of theirtraining through concept mapping, atechnique in which students create avisual map of connections in order tounderstand the relationships amongideas and create a plan of care. Aconcept map shows patient problemsand how they are interrelated based ontheir admitting diagnoses, patient assess-ments, diagnostic test results,interventions, and treatments. This typeof training encourages students tounderstand the concepts and connec-

tions of nursing care rather than memo-rize disconnected data.

In fall 2001, WILBUR WRIGHT COLLEGE

(IL) began an ongoing collegewide con-versation among faculty (includingadjuncts), students, staff, and administra-tion focused not only on what teachersdo in the classroom to produce learning,but also on what students do to demon-strate that learning. All course syllabinow have explicit student learning out-comes linked to the college’s generaleducation goals. In addition, interdiscipli-nary peer advisory panels consult withdepartments to help develop assignmentsthat demonstrate learning across thegeneral education core — for example,the types of assignments an Englishteacher might make to allow students todemonstrate quantitative literacy or thetypes of oral presentation assignmentsthat are possible in a math class.

At MERCY COLLEGE OF HEALTH

SCIENCES (IA), students in theIntroduction to Research course com-plete a research proposal during thesemester related to a problem orconcern of interest to them. This assign-ment includes proposing a design fortheir study, identifying target and acces-sible populations, and determining theeligibility criteria for subjects. In addi-tion, they select an appropriateinstrument for their study or develop adata collection tool of their own. Finally,students identify the statistical proce-dure that will be used to analyze results.

Although the students do not actuallyconduct a full research study, theydevelop an understanding of theresearch process. Students presentresearch proposals to their peers withthe use of PowerPoint slides, furtherdeveloping their communication skills.

Reaching for Excellence:Student-FacultyInteractionTHE FOLLOWING COLLEGES were amongthe top performers within their size cate-gory on the student-faculty interactionbenchmark. This list, presented in alpha-betical order without regard to size, alsoindicates colleges that serve high propor-tions of minority, first-generation, andacademically underprepared students.

H Austin Community College (TX)*H Dona Ana Branch Community

College — NMSU (NM)*+†H Gainesville College (GA)H Guilford Technical Community

College (NC)*†H Parkland College (IL)H North Harris Montgomery

Community College District (TX)*†H Northwest Indian College (WA)*+†H The Community and Technical

College at WVU Tech (WV)+

2005 Findings

*denotes minority-serving institutions (at least 25% of students are black, Hispanic, or Native American).

+denotes institutions that serve high proportions of first-generation students (at least 37% of students — the median for colleges included in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — are first-generation).

†denotes institutions that serve high proportions of academically underprepared students (at least 53% of students — the median for colleges included in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — need develop-mental education in at least one area).

H17

Page 20: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H18For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

Intentional Engagement Strategies

In 2002, NORTHWEST INDIAN COLLEGE

(WA), with grant support from theNational Science Foundation, began theFirst Year Experience (FYE) program toincrease student completion of science,technology, engineering, and mathe-matics courses. The program integratesscience, communication, Native history,and writing courses; it also has anexplicit strategy of forming student-faculty partnerships.

In fall 2004, Jessie U. entered NWICwithout a major. During the next threequarters, she was involved in the FYEprogram. In her composition class, shewrote about plants; in oral communica-tion she argued fishing rights; in historyshe studied geology. She also becameinvolved in campus clubs, possiblybecause all FYE instructors advisecampus organizations as part of theircommitment. With faculty support,Jessie successfully completed a researchinternship in Alaska with theEnvironmental Protection Agency insummer 2005. Her goal now is to con-centrate her studies on environmentalsciences. Jessie’s story is typical of FYEstudents. Since the program began, allnew full-time students have participatedin the program, with approximately25–30 completing summer internships.Indicators such as retention, coursecompletion, and grade point averagehave shown substantial improvement.

To enhance student-faculty interactionoutside the classroom, THE COMMUNITY

AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE AT WVUTECH (WV) took a close look at itsstudent organizations. Recognizing the on-campus benefit as well as theemployment connections that theseorganizations provide, the college set anexpectation that each technical programarea would have a student organization.

As student organizations were formed inother areas, participants helped designand build student lounges, participated inEarth Day activities, served as judges forcompetitions, assisted high schoolteachers with robotics contests, andaccompanied faculty on recruiting trips.With the growing number of adult stu-dents, a NonTraditional StudentOrganization was formed; Phi ThetaKappa, the honor society of two-year col-leges, was reactivated. Partially as a resultof these efforts, the college produced thehighest retention and graduation rates ofall community colleges in the state.

PARKLAND COLLEGE (IL) recognizesthat communication is critical. Facultymembers are using technology to findnew ways to connect with students.Quite naturally, with the development ofonline learning at the college, faculty andstudent interaction through e-mail isincreasing. Many faculty, including bothonline and on-campus instructors, e-mail their students before classes beginand each week of the course, providingsupplemental course information andsoliciting feedback.

37%

43%

15%

55%

8%

24%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Key Findings for Student-FacultyInteraction

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Students who often or very often ...

Used e-mail to communicate with aninstructor

Discussed grades or assignments with aninstructor

Received prompt feedback (oral or written) from instructors

Talked about career plans with an instructor

Worked with instructors on activities otherthan coursework

Discussed ideas from readings or class withinstructors outside of class

*denotes minority-serving institutions (at least 25% of students are black, Hispanic, or Native American).

+denotes institutions that serve high proportions of first-generation students (at least 37% of students — the median for collegesincluded in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — are first-generation).

†denotes institutions that serve high proportions of academically underprepared students (at least 53% of students — the medianfor colleges included in the 2005 CCSSE benchmarks — need developmental education in at least one area).

70%

24%

28%

44%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Key Findings for Support for Learners

Provides the support they need at this college

Provides the support they need to thrive socially

Provides the financial support they need toafford their education

Students who report that their college “quite abit” or “very much” ...

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Helps them cope with nonacademicresponsibilities

Page 21: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

GAINESVILLE COLLEGE (GA) emphasizesthe importance of integrating technologyinto the fabric of the institution toenhance student success and develop-ment. Having designated electronic mailas the official means of communication,the college creates e-mail groups for classcorrespondence and provides easy-to-useelectronic tools, including electronic bul-letin boards and shared class folders, tofacilitate advisor-student interaction.

Almost all classrooms at GC are “smartclassrooms” that create opportunities forinteraction and learning by integratingcomputer, multimedia, audio-visual, andnetwork technologies in all academicdisciplines.

Reaching for Excellence:Support for LearnersTHE FOLLOWING COLLEGES were amongthe top performers within their size cat-egory on the support for learnersbenchmark. This list, presented in alpha-betical order without regard to size, alsoindicates colleges that serve high propor-tions of minority, first-generation, andacademically underprepared students.

H El Centro College (TX)*+†H El Paso Community College (TX)*+†H LaGuardia Community College (NY)*+†H Louisiana Delta Community College

(LA)*†H Pueblo Community College (CO)*+†H St. Philip’s College (TX)*+†H Sinclair Community College (OH)†H Southern University at Shreveport

(LA)*+†

Intentional Engagement Strategies

In 2003, ST. PHILIP’S COLLEGE (TX)established the Advisors in Residence(AIR) program, placing full-time aca-demic advisors across the college to helpstudents with their class schedules,degree plans, referrals from faculty, andpreparations for graduation. These advi-sors also encourage students and guidethem to support services.

Data suggest that there is a positive rela-tionship between the advisor andstudent contacts and increased studentretention and graduation. For the sevendepartments using AIR for the past twoand a half years, the number of gradu-ates increased dramatically. In2002–2003 through 2004–2005, thenumber of associate degrees and certifi-cates awarded increased by 68%. Incontrast, the number of graduates in the10 departments without full-time advi-sors grew at a rate of 28%.

At SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE

(OH), new students develop anIndividual Learning Plan (ILP) based onrisk criteria. Counselors assist the stu-dents with career selection, a plan to payfor educational expenses, and strategiesto improve learning and study skills.Students also receive intervention serv-ices through early alerts.

From July 2003 through June 2005, atotal of 5,135 students were served. TheILP students had consistently higherretention rates than non-ILP studentsand all first-time degree-seeking stu-dents. ILP students who have multiplerisk factors compared favorably to the

average of all students in terms of gradepoint average and successful course com-pletion. Participants reported that ILPhelped them overcome obstacles. Finally,there was no significant difference in 2005between minority (predominantly AfricanAmerican) and nonminority student per-sistence for all new full-time students.

To support student learning, PUEBLO

COMMUNITY COLLEGE (CO) integratedfour Education Advocates (EAs) into thecollege’s advising model. The EAs act asliaisons between the students and theirinstructors; provide academic, career,and personal guidance; and direct stu-dents to on- and off-campus resources.Pueblo also has student mentors whocontact students to schedule advisingappointments, remind them of dead-lines, and tell them about campusactivities. Faculty members use an elec-tronic early alert system to refer studentsto EAs for intervention.

At EL CENTRO COLLEGE (TX), all mathclasses are taught with an online compo-nent, which allows students to completeassignments and quizzes, use tutorials,and check their grades. Faculty membersalso developed a math CD that provideshelp with developmental math as well asa range of resources.

In addition, full-time mathematics facultymembers provide adjunct faculty trainingtwice per year.

2005 FindingsH19

Page 22: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

H20For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

CCFSSE: A First Look

Through the Eyes of FacultyMembers

The Community College Faculty Surveyof Student Engagement (CCFSSE), whichis aligned with CCSSE, elicits informa-tion from faculty about their teachingpractices, the ways they spend their pro-fessional time both in and out of class,and their perceptions regarding students’educational experiences. In 2005, 3,561faculty members from 39 colleges partic-ipated in the first national administrationof the survey.

All institutions that participated in the2005 CCSSE survey were invited to par-ticipate in CCFSSE, which wasadministered via the Web. At collegesthat chose to participate, every facultymember teaching credit classes wasinvited to respond to the survey, andfaculty respondents generally mirror thenational two-year college faculty popula-tion. The notable exception isemployment status: Nationally, 33% oftwo-year college faculty members areemployed full-time, while 59% of CCFSSErespondents are employed full-time.

CCFSSE responses enable participatinginstitutions to note areas of strength,identify challenges for further considera-

tion, and target areas of focus for facultydevelopment. As an exercise that canyield intriguing results, colleges maycontrast faculty perceptions with studentresponses, although it is important tonote that these comparisons are notalways equivalent. Students report theirexperiences throughout the current aca-demic year, while faculty members areasked to describe their practices in aspecific, selected course and also to indi-cate their perceptions of studentexperiences in the college more gener-ally. Nonetheless, the student and facultyresponses provide a useful prompt fordiscussion, particularly where facultyand students have differing perceptions.

In the Eye of the Beholder

Overall, faculty members perceive higherlevels of student engagement than stu-dents report. This divergence is notunexpected; in part, it shows the differ-ence between personal data (what eachperson personally observes and experi-ences) and systematically collected data,which show what typically is happeningto students on campus. For example, aninstructor might talk with five or six stu-dents after each class and personallyexperience a high level of student-facultyinteraction. But if generally it is the samefive or six students that linger after each

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Effective Educational Practice: Studentand Faculty Responses

Activ

e an

dCo

llabo

rativ

e Le

arni

ng

Stud

ent

Effo

rt

Acad

emic

Ch

alle

nge

Stud

ent-

Facu

ltyIn

tera

ctio

n

Supp

ort

for L

earn

ers

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Student-Faculty Interaction: StudentExperiences/Faculty Perceptions

Used

e-m

ail t

o co

mm

unic

ate

Disc

usse

d gr

ades

or a

ssig

nmen

ts

Talk

ed a

bout

care

er p

lans

Disc

usse

d id

eas

outs

ide

of c

lass

Gave

or r

ecei

ved

prom

pt fe

edba

ck

Inte

ract

ed d

urin

g no

n-co

urse

wor

k ac

tiviti

es

Faculty StudentsCCFSSE data are based on results from 39 colleges. When student (CCSSE) and faculty (CCFSSE) views are presented side-by-side in thisreport, the student responses include data only from colleges that participated in the faculty survey. It also is important to note that whileCCSSE results are expressed in terms of benchmarks, which are created through a complex statistical analysis and peer review, thereare no benchmarks for CCFSSE. For this report, CCFSSE results are presented in groupings of survey items that correspond to the CCSSEbenchmarks.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Faculty Students

Page 23: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

class, then the instructor is interactingwith only a fraction of his or her students.

With regard to active and collaborativelearning items, faculty members reportthat students are asking more questionsin class, collaborating more with othersinside and outside of class, and workingon community-based projects more thanstudents report actually doing any ofthese activities.

Faculty also consistently report higherlevels of student-faculty interaction,which research indicates is critical tostudent retention. For example:

H 93% of faculty members report givingprompt feedback (oral or written) tostudents often or very often vs. 55%of students who report receiving suchfeedback often or very often.

H 38% of faculty say they discusscareer plans with students often orvery often vs. 22% of students whoreport having such conversationswith faculty.

H 29% of faculty say they discuss ideasfrom readings or classes with stu-dents outside of class vs. 15% ofstudents who report having suchinteractions.

While faculty members’ overall percep-tions of student effort are similar tothose of students, faculty membersreport significantly lower levels ofengagement in several areas:

H 35% of faculty vs. 15% of studentsreport that the students often or veryoften come to class unprepared.

H 16% of faculty vs. 7% of studentsreport that the students often or veryoften skip class.

H 22% of faculty vs. 50% of students saythe students often or very oftenprepare multiple drafts of a paperbefore turning it in.

In fact, faculty members report differentlevels of student engagement only inthree areas of the student effort bench-mark: students’ use of tutoring, skill labs,and computer lab. This difference,however, likely is because CCFSSE asksfaculty members how often they referstudents to such services, while CCSSEasks students how often they use theservices.

2005 FindingsH21

Note: Three items were excluded from these data. A CCSSE survey item about the number of books students read on their own can’t be asked on the facultysurvey. Items about the number of books read and papers assigned for classes were omitted from the comparison because students report on those activitiesfor the full year, while faculty report on those activities for their particular class.

To create these charts of student and faculty views, responses to CCSSE and CCFSSE items were rescaled. All scores were converted to proportions of theirtotals so that the low end of the scale was always zero and the high end was always one. For example, a four on a seven-point scale and a three on a five-point scale both equal 0.5. Don’t Know/Not Applicable responses on items measuring frequency of use were not included in the computation of these scores.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Student Effort: Student Experiences/Faculty Perceptions

Prep

ared

two

or m

ore

draf

ts o

f a p

aper

or r

epor

t

Inte

grat

ed id

eas

or in

form

atio

n

Cam

e to

cla

ss p

repa

red

Tim

e sp

ent

prep

arin

g fo

r cla

ss

Freq

uenc

y:tu

torin

g

Freq

uenc

y:sk

ill la

bs

Freq

uenc

y:co

mpu

ter l

ab

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Active and Collaborative Learning:Student and Faculty Responses

Aske

d qu

estio

ns in

cla

ss

Mad

e a

clas

s pr

esen

tatio

n

Wor

ked

with

oth

ers

durin

g cl

ass

Wor

ked

with

oth

ers

outs

ide

of c

lass

Tuto

red

Wor

ked

on a

com

mun

ity-

base

d pr

ojec

t

Disc

usse

d id

eas

with

othe

rs o

utsi

de o

f cla

ss

Faculty Students

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Source: CCSSE 2005 data.

Faculty Students

Page 24: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

Making the Most of All FacultyMembers’ Time

Both full-time and part-time facultymembers must make the most of thetime they spend with students. Giventhe number of both part-time studentsand part-time instructors, students’ andfaculty members’ shared experiences —and their opportunities for engagement— occur primarily in the classroom. TheCCFSSE responses show that:

H Three-quarters (75%) of full-timefaculty and 9% of part-time facultyconsider academic advising part oftheir teaching role.

H 80% of part-time faculty and 47% offull-time faculty spend zero hours perweek working with students on activ-ities other than coursework.

H Only 12% of part-time faculty andless than one-quarter (23%) of full-time faculty often incorporateacademic advising into their coursesections.

H Only 10% of all faculty considerlinked courses, 9% consider learningcommunities, and 8% considerservice learning part of their teachingrole. In all cases, a greater number offull-time faculty than part-timefaculty are employing these practices.

In addition to these findings aboutteaching roles and practices, the datareflect important realities about facultydemographics — that is, 85% of facultyrespondents are white, and 64% of theCCSSE respondents at CCFSSE collegesare white. Also, more than half ofCCFSSE respondents (52%) are at least50 years old.

Reflections on Results

Academic advising and career counseling— engagement efforts that encouragestudents to set and meet goals — canhave a significant effect on student retention and success. Even though 89%of CCSSE student respondents cite aca-demic advising/planning as “somewhat”or “very” important, 35% report that they rarely or never use these services.Half of students (50%) say they rarely or never use career counseling services.Instructors who build these activitiesinto their class requirements thereforehave the potential to reach students whootherwise would not be getting thiscounseling.

Several instructional strategies, such aslearning communities and servicelearning, are powerful strategies forstudent engagement. Relatively smallnumbers of faculty members currentlyreport using these innovative practices,

but their use is expected to grow incoming years. Certainly, there are oppor-tunities for professional development inthis area.

Finally, the demographics of facultymembers also suggest a particular focusfor professional development. In somecases, faculty may benefit from betterunderstanding the dynamics created bythe racial differences between instruc-tors and students. The average age ofcommunity college faculty is noteworthybecause many faculty members areapproaching retirement age. Nationaldata indicate that more than half (56%)of full-time community college facultyand 47% of part-time community collegefaculty are expected to retire in the next10 to 15 years.* This level of turnoverwill require resources for new facultyorientation and professional develop-ment, but it also allows colleges toestablish new expectations for faculty toactively engage students both in andoutside the classroom.

*NCES, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: 2004.

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org.

“No faculty member intentionally goes into a classroom not wanting to engage hisor her students, but sometimes there seems to be a disconnect between the facultyand student experiences in the classroom, as if the two aren’t entirely on the same

page. The CCFSSE lets us see where some of these disconnects are.”

WENDY LINGOCounselor

Kirkwood Community College (IA)CCSSE participant, 2001, 2003, 2005

H22

Page 25: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS

2005 Findings

Overview of 2005 CCSSE RespondentsTHE 2005 CCSSE SURVEY WAS administered in spring 2005during class sessions at CCSSE member colleges. An overviewof the participating colleges and their students follows. Detailsabout the member colleges, student respondents, and thesurvey sampling and administration process are available atwww.ccsse.org.

H A total of 133,281 students from 257 institutions in 38 statesare included in the 2005 CCSSE national sample.

H 2005 CCSSE member colleges enroll a total of 1,308,928credit students, or about 21% of the total credit-studentpopulation in the nation’s community colleges.

H Overall, CCSSE’s survey respondents in 2002, 2003, 2004,and 2005 represent a total credit enrollment of 2,360,316students across 404 CCSSE member colleges in 43 states.CCSSE’s entire college membership over the same periodrepresents approximately 36% of the nation’s communitycolleges (1,113 regionally accredited, public associate-degree-granting institutions) and 37% of their 6,318,779credit students.

H Of the 257 colleges participating in 2005, 58% are classifiedas small (up to 4,499 students), 24% as medium(4,500–7,999 students), 11% as large (8,000–14,999 stu-dents), and 7% as extra large (15,000 or more students).Nationally, 58% of community colleges are small, 20% aremedium, 14% are large, and 8% are extra large.

H Colleges reported their locations as 28% urban, 23% sub-urban, and 49% rural. Fall 2003 IPEDS data indicate thatamong all U.S. community colleges, 39% are urban, 24% aresuburban, and 37% are rural.

H Students who responded to the survey generally reflect theunderlying student population of the participating collegesin terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. Part-time students,however, were underrepresented in the CCSSE samplebecause classes are sampled rather than individual students.(About 31% of CCSSE respondents are enrolled part-time,and 69% are enrolled full-time. IPEDS shows that thenational figures are 60% part-time and 40% full-time.) Toaddress this discrepancy, CCSSE results are weighted bypart-time and full-time status to reflect the institutions’actual proportions of part- and full-time students.

H Of the survey respondents, 61% were female and 39% weremale. These figures are similar to the national communitycollege student ratio, which is 59% female and 41% male.

H 2005 CCSSE student respondents range in age from 18 to65+ years old.

H With respect to race/ethnicity, 2005 CCSSE respondentsand the national community college population may becompared as follows:

*International students are not citizens or nationals of the United States and are in the country on avisa or temporary basis.

Sources: CCSSE 2005 data and IPEDS, Fall 2003.

Noteworthy Facts about 2005 Participating Colleges

H The 2005 membership includes fourteen consortia: a con-sortium of small Texas colleges (nine colleges); the HispanicServing Institutions/Hispanic Association of Colleges andSchools consortium (16 colleges); the Achieving the Dreamconsortium (14 colleges in four states); and member collegesfrom Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, NorthCarolina, North Dakota, Northeast Minnesota, Tennessee,Virginia, and West Virginia.

H All or most of the public community colleges in five states— Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, Virginia, and WestVirginia — participated in the 2005 CCSSE survey.

H In addition, at least 30% of the total statewide communitycollege student population in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Texas are represented in 2005.

Race/ethnicity

White

Latino/Hispanic

Black

International*

Asian

Native American

Other

CCSSE respondents

68%

8%

12%

5%

2%

2%

3%

National percentages

65%

11%

14%

2%

4%

1%

3%

H23

Page 26: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

PETER EWELL, CHAIRVice PresidentNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems

DAVID ARMSTRONGChancellorFlorida Community Colleges and WorkforceEducation

GEORGE BOGGSPresident and CEOAmerican Association of Community Colleges

WALTER G. BUMPHUSPresidentLouisiana Community & Technical College System

RUSSELL EDGERTONDirectorThe Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning

JONI E. FINNEYVice PresidentThe National Center for Public Policy and HigherEducation

GEORGE GRAINGERGrant OfficerHouston Endowment, Inc.

ZELEMA HARRISPresidentParkland College (IL)

CHRISTINE JOHNSONPresidentCommunity College of Denver (CO)

GEORGE KUHChancellor’s Professor and DirectorNational Survey of Student EngagementIndiana University

WILLIAM LAWPresidentTallahassee Community College (FL)

HOMERO LOPEZPresidentEstrella Mountain Community College (AZ)

BYRON MCCLENNEYProgram Director and Adjunct ProfessorAchieving the DreamThe University of Texas at Austin

ALEXANDER MCCORMICKSenior ScholarThe Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching

MARK MILLIRONExecutive Director, Education PracticeSAS Institute, Inc.

MICHAEL NETTLESExecutive DirectorCenter for Policy Studies and ResearchEducational Testing Service

MICHAEL POINDEXTERVice President for Student AffairsCommunity College of Rhode Island

MARGOT PEREZ-GREENEDirector, NISODThe University of Texas at Austin

JOHN E. ROUECHESid W. Richardson Regents Chair and DirectorCommunity College Leadership ProgramThe University of Texas at Austin

CCSSE National Advisory Board

For more information about CCSSE and the 2005 survey, visit www.ccsse.org. H24

Page 27: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

CCSSE Staff

KAY M. MCCLENNEY, PH.D.Director

ALICIA BETSINGER, PH.D.Survey Operations Coordinator

JEFF CRUMPLEYSenior Research Associate

C. NATHAN MARTI, PH.D.Senior Research Associate

CHRISTINE MCLEANCollege Relations Coordinator

COURTNEY ADKINS, PH.D.College Liaison

CHRIS COSARTResearch Associate

ARLEEN ARNSPARGERManager, MetLife FoundationInitiative

LIN TAOGraduate Research Assistant

SARAH SUPULSKISenior Administrative Associate

KATHY A. THATCHERSenior Administrative Associate

PAT DIDNERAdministrative Assistant

ROWLAND CADENAProject Associate

ADRIENNE SNEEDSenior Office Assistant

LAUREL ROWSenior Office Assistant

JOSEPH CALLIHAMOffice Assistant

Editorial and design by KSA-Plus Communications.

CCSSE MEMBER COLLEGES 2005For a list of CCSSE member colleges, visit www.ccsse.org.

Page 28: ENGAGING STUDENTS, CHALLENGING THE ODDS · risk students, even the most engaging educational experience will not be powerful enough to offset the combination of financial, academic,

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

I UNIVERSITY STATION D5600 | AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712-0378T: 512.471.6807 | F: 512.471.4209 | E: [email protected] | WWW.CCSSE.ORG