The Influence of Classroom Engagement on Community College

Student Learning: A Quantitative Analysis of Effective Faculty Practices

James R. Lancaster, Ed.D.

Colloquium SeriesCalifornia State University, FullertonSeptember 3, 2014

Topic Background

Student investment of time and effort in educationally meaningful activities is a strong predictor of success in college (Astin, 1985; Kuh, 1993, 2009). However, those studies were conducted with students at institutions granting baccalaureate degrees (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This creates at least two problems.

1. Engagement’s applicability to community college students has not been established (Marti, 2009; Pascarella, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

2. Community college students often have multiple off-campus responsibilities that limit their time for engagement in the college experience (Hammer, Grigsby, & Woods, 1998; Hanson, Drumheller, Mallard, McKee, & Schlegal, 2011; Hirschy, Bremer, & Castellano, 2011).

Topic Background

The classroom may be the most promising venue for fostering meaningful engagement because all students participate, regardless of their outside demands.

However, community college faculty receive little, if any, education about the value of engagement, and they may not have the skills to foster an engaging classroom experience (Fugate & Amey, 2000; Haviland, Turley & Shin, 2011; Wallin & Smith, 2005).

The Problem

There is a lack of understanding of the engaging community college classroom practices that promote student success.

Purpose of the Research

To explore links to student engagement from classroom activities and from faculty practice in a community college setting.

To identify faculty groups whose classroom and course activities aligned better with community college student engagement.

Research Questions

1. What faculty behaviors and course decisions best predict learning gains for students?

2. How do the faculty’s perception and use of these identified engaging practices vary based on faculty characteristics of employment status, academic degree, course repetition, teaching experience, and teaching area?

Setting and Sample

Data collected at one California community college: Community College Survey of Student Engagement

(CCSSE) n= 748 Students

Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE) n= 215 faculty members

Findings

Research Question 1

First, ordinary least squares regression was used to identify the faculty behaviors and course decisions that best predict learning gains for students in each of the following domains:

a. academic learning (α= 0.848)

b. career learning (α= 0.814)

c. personal development (α= 0.882)

28 faculty-contingent variables, plus student variables of gender and ethnicity

Faculty-Contingent Variables Predicting Community College Student Learning

Only those faculty-contingent variables or student variables in RQ1 that significantly predicted student learning and met one of the following criteria were chosen to serve as dependent variables for RQ2: Predicted learning in at least two learning domains Had a β> 0.100 in at least one learning domain

This yielded seven faculty-contingent variables

Seven Selected Faculty-Contingent Variables for RQ2

Academic CareerPersonal

Development

Quality of relationship with the instructor 0.245*** 0.230*** 0.230***

Using computers to complete work 0.253*** 0.185*** 0.168***

Discussed career plans with the instructor 0.185*** 0.095*

Prepared two drafts of a paper before submitting 0.084* 0.091*

Performed a new skill as part of course 0.094* 0.097*

Worked with instructors on activities beyond coursework 0.121**

Analyzing basic elements of ideas, theories and experiences as part of course

0.125**

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

Data Analysis and Results

Research Question 2

How do the faculty’s perception and use of these identified engaging practices vary based on faculty characteristics of employment status, academic degree, course repetition, teaching experience, and teaching area?

Part-time Full-time0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

Course emphasizes performing a new skill

Compared with part-time faculty, full-time faculty are significantly more likely to

emphasize performing a new skill (p<.05).

0

1

2

3

non-CTE subject area

CTE sub-ject area

Faculty teaching in a CTE subject area are more likely to: (1) discuss career plans with students and

(2) emphasize performing a new skill (p<.05).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Differences Based on Course Experience

0 to 3>21

Faculty with more course experience engage significantly more often in effective engagement

activities (p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001).

0 to 3 4 to 20Analyzing the basic elements of idea, experience,

or theory*

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Faculty with 4-20 course experiences use more analysis of basic elements than faculty with 0-3

course experiences (p<.05).

Faculty with a bachelor’s degree or less engage more frequently with students around career plans and

activities other than coursework (**p<.01)

0123

BA or lessMaster'sDoctoral

Faculty teaching developmental courses, either exclusively or partly, require students to prepare multiple drafts of papers more

often than faculty teaching exclusively college level courses (p<.05).

0123

Prepare Two or More Drafts of a Paper Before Submitting

Faculty who teach college-level courses perceive higher quality relationships with students (p<.05).

Developmental Only College Only01234567

Quality of the Students' Relationship with the Instructors

Central Implications Course experience plays a key role in three significant learning

predictors (analyzing, new skill, and relationships) which have influence in all three learning domains

However, developing courses that incorporate and assess these higher levels of learning (new skill and analysis) can be formally learned by the faculty or left to trial and error.

Supports the need for: Formal faculty development (Fugate & Amey, 2000; Haviland, Turley &

Shin, 2011; Lackey, 2001; Wallin and Smith, 2005) or pre-service training (Fugate and Amey; Lancaster & Bain, 2010;

Major & Dolly, 2003; Putman, 2012) Both options expedite faculty competency rather than informal faculty

development that is unstructured and left to occur spontaneously during instructional time (Burns, 2008; Burns, Schaefer & Hayden, 2005).

Central Implications

It’s all about relationships. Relationships matter the most!

Faculty who maintain helpful, available and sympathetic relationships with students increase their students’ academic success, career learning, and personal development more than any other activity or practice.

This study also showed that these relationships are better facilitated as the faculty have more course experience or teach higher level courses.

Abridged Recommendations Additional research into the faculty-student relationship

barriers perceived by faculty teaching developmental courses needs to be addressed.

Community colleges that typically review each CCSSE and CCFSEE data element on an individual basis using descriptive statistics should consider adding correlational analysis, particularly in the areas of student success.

Because faculty behaviors were strongly related to student learning, formalized preservice training and certification is needed to place highly qualified and competent faculty, not just subject experts, in community college classrooms.

References

Alexander, A., Karvonen, M., Ulrich, J., Davis, T., & Wade, A. (2012). Community college faculty competencies. Community College Journal Of Research and Practice, 36(11), 849-862.

Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships effective. College Teaching, 50(4), 134-138. doi:10.1080/87567550209595894

Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact. Sociology of Education, 43, 223-254.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A.W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4), 34-39.

Astin, A. W. (1993a). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change, 25, 44-49.

Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-29.

Burns, J. Z. (2008). Informal learning and transfer of learning: How new trade and industrial teachers perceive their professional growth and development. Career and Technical Education Research, 33(1), 3-24.

Burns, J. Z., Schaefer, K., & Hayden, J. M. (2005). New trade and industrial teachers' perceptions of formal learning versus informal learning and teaching proficiency. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(3), 66-87.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.

Duffy, M., & Chenail, R. J. (2008). Values in qualitative and quantitative research. Counseling & Values, 53(1), 22-38.

Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1.

Hammer, L.B., Grigsby, T.D., & Woods, S. (1998). The conflicting demands of work, family, and school among students at an urban university. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 220-226.

Hanson, T. L., Drumheller, K., Mallard, J., McKee, C., & Schlegel, P. (2011). Cell phones, text messaging, and facebook: Competing time demands of today's college students. College Teaching, 59(1), 23-30.

Haviland, D., Turley, S., & Shin, S. (2011). Changes over time in faculty attitudes, confidence, and understanding as related to program assessment. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(1), 69-84.

Hirschy, A.S., Bremer, C.D., & Castellano, M. (2011). Career and technical education (CTE) student success in community colleges: A conceptual model. Community College Review, 39(3), 296-318.

Kuh, G.D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304.

Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.

Lackey, K. (2011). Faculty development: An analysis of current and effective training strategies for preparing faculty to teach online. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(4), 8-18.

Laird, N. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higher-than-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 85-99. doi: 10.1002/tl.327

Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 117-128.

Lei, S. A. (2008). Assessment techniques of instructors in two community colleges in a state-wide system. Education, 128(3), 392-411.

Lundberg, C. A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 201-215.

Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.

Major, C.H., & Dolly, J. P. (2003). The importance of graduate program experiences to faculty self-efficacy for academic tasks. Journal of Staff, Program & Organizational Development, 19(2), 89-100.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.

Putman, S. M. (2012). Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice teachers with different levels of experience. Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 26-40. doi:10.1080/01626620.2012.642285

Schmidtke, C. (2009). “That's what really helped me was their teaching”: Instructor impact on the retention of American Indian students at a two-year technical college. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 46(1), 48-80.

Schneider, M. & Yin, L.M. (2012). Completion matters: The high cost of low community college graduation rates. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2012/04/02/-completion-matters-the-high-cost-of-low-community-college-graduation-rates_173407573640.pdf

Stiles, J., Hout, M., & Brady, H.(2012a). California’s fiscal returns on investments in higher education. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 15.12. University of California, Berkley.

Stiles, J., Hout, M., & Brady, H.(2012b). California’s economic payoff: Investing in college access & completion. Campaign for College Opportunity. Retrieved from http://www.collegecampaign.org/resources/research/ca-economic-payoff/

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.

Wallin, D., & Smith, C. (2005). Professional development needs of full-time faculty in technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 29(2), 87-108. doi:10.1080/10668920590524238