Upload
ross-bruce
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
March 3, 2010. TAIR, Waco, TX
Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! The Role of Part-Time Students and Faculty in Student Engagement
CCSSE: Listening to StudentsGoal
To provide member colleges with results that can be used to inform decision making and target institutional improvements.
2009 CCSSE Cohort
• 400,000 Students
• 663 colleges
• 48 states, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Marshall Islands
Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE)
Faculty teaching practices, the ways they spend their professional time both in and out of class, and their perceptions regarding students’ educational experiences
Is aligned with CCSSE to allow colleges to contrast student and faculty perceptions
Who’s in this research?Texas CCSSE & CCFSSE Classes in 2009
• 32 Colleges
• 690 Classes
• 8,000 Students
• 600 Faculty members
Part-time Isn’t Just about Students
Class Time: Part-time faculty have more part-time students in their classes.
Texas CCSSE & CCFSSE Classes in 2009
Part-time Students
Full-timeStudents
Part-time Faculty
Full-timeFaculty
Morning 50% 65% 42% 64%
Afternoon 19% 25% 22% 25%
Evening 31% 10% 31% 11%
Part-time Isn’t Just about Students
Benchmarks: Part-time students from the classes taught by part-time faculty have the
lowest benchmarks.Texas CCSSE & CCFSSE Classes in 2009
FacultyActive and
Collaborative Learning
Student Effort
Academic Challenge
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for Learners
Part-time Students
Part-time 43.6 46.5 45.9 45.1 49.2
Full-time 45.8 46.8 47.4 45.7 50.5
Full-time Students
Part-time 53.3 54.3 54.4 52.1 52.9
Full-time 55.0 53.9 54.7 53.6 56.3
Expectations: Students and FacultyStudent Stem: During the current school year,
how much has your coursework at this college emphasized the following activities?
Faculty Stem: During the current school year, how much does the coursework in your selected course section emphasize the following mental activities?
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
5b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory 5c. Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences
in new ways5d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of
information, arguments, or methods5e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new
situations5f. Having students use information they have read or heard to
perform a new skill
9a. Encouraging students to spend significant amounts of time studying (slightly different stem)
Response scale: 1= Very Little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a Bit, 4= Very Much
Expectations: Students vs Faculty
`
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Students FacultyT-testProb.
EffectSize
Sig.N Mean N Mean
8012 2.806 608 2.967 < .001 .25 Yes
He digs down into the details and he’s a rigorous teacher… I thank him for being a rigorous teacher because that helps when I go on.— Male student
“I hate it at the moment, but my favorite teachers are always the ass-kickers … I like to be challenged.”— Male student
Instructor Expectation and Student Engagement
Benchmark Independent Var Model DF Estimate F value Prob > F
Active & Collaborative
Learning
St Enrol Status
4,7989
-9.19 191.54 < .001
Fac Emp Status -1.78 8.8 < .01
Fac Expectation 2.49 27.55 < .001
Student EffortSt Enrol Status
4,7989-7.13 126.48 < .001
Fac Expectation 1.68 13.07 < .001
Academic Challenge
St Enrol Status4,7988
-7.22 142.12 < .001
Fac Expectation 2.42 28.23 < .001
Student-Faculty
Interaction
St Enrol Status4,7988
-7.78 124.33 < .001
Fac Expectation 1.58 11.75 < .001
Support for Learners
St Enrol Status
4,7972
-5.80 48.93 < .001
Fac Emp Status -3.37 11.43 < .001
Fac Expectation 1.24 6.98 < .01
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Instructor Expectations & Student Behaviors
Dependent Var Independent Var Model DF Estimate F value Prob > F
Prepare 2+ drafts of a paper or
assignment
St Enrol Status
4,7936
-.23 90.78 < .001
Fac Emp Status .09 5.2 < .05
Fac Expectation .08 17.13 < .001
Come to class unprepared
St Enrol Status4,7918
.09 22.6 < .001
Fac Expectation .02 2.76 < .1
Received prompt
feedback
St Enrol Status
4,7914
.10 3.28 < .08
St * Fac Status .11 5.43 < .02
Fac Expectation .05 10.22 < .01
Skipped ClassSt Enrol Status
4,7962.10 47.7 < .001
Fac Expectation .0 2.81 < .1
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Discussion• PT students more likely to be taught by PT
faculty.
• Students appear to perceive that faculty have lower expectations than faculty report
• FT students tend to have higher engagement scores, but mixed results with regard to specific behaviors.
• Faculty expectations related to student engagement and behaviors.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Not critical of PT facultyInstitutional environments and procedures that may contribute to the differences between PT and FT faculty.
• PT faculty not required to have office hours
• PT faculty do not have offices
• PT faculty not required to participate in professional development that FT faculty attend
Ask yourself: At my campus is there a group of courses continuously with low passing/completion? Who teaches these courses?
Community College Survey of Student Engagement
Contact Information
Mike Bohlig, Ph.D.Senior Research [email protected]
Beiyi CaiResearch [email protected]
www.ccsse.org
Community College Survey of Student Engagement