Academic Behaviors: Cognitive and Behavioral … Behaviors: Cognitive and Behavioral Characteristics...

OFFICE OF PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND ACCREDITATION

Academic Behaviors: Cognitive and Behavioral Characteristics of

Saddleback StudentsResearch Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

During a time when global economic challenges have imposed new constraints on higher education institutionsi, the undergraduate student population has changed to include more part-time students. This has elevated the importance of community collegesii. However, a growing number of students are called away from higher education institutions, citing financial and work obligations as hurdles to gaining full-time enrollment. The implications for community colleges are far-reaching. This study was designed to unpack the rich ways in which students engage their peers and faculty, in addition to exploring differences, if any, between part-time and full-time students on measures of habits of mind. This work also looks at indicators of academic success. Broader interpretations and implications are offered for Saddleback College faculty and students. Methodology

During the Fall 2012 term, the Office of Planning, Research, and Accreditation (OPRA) developed and implemented the first Saddleback College survey related to students’ academic behaviors. The survey was distributed via email to a random sample of over 6,000 students from a list of 22,523. A total of 496 students took the survey, resulting in a 10% response rate, roughly. The instrument consists of 42 items, which cover the four general areas of students’ background, behavior, support, and outcomes. Data were analyzed using several descriptive and inferential tools. Findings

This investigation turned first to in-class behaviors and discovered that over a third to two thirds of Saddleback students indicate building a presentation for class (40.6%), preparing several drafts of an assignment prior to submission (55.9%), and integrating ideas or information on a course assignment using multiple sources (67.5%). Students report engaging their instructors through e-mail (70.5%) more frequently than not at all (6.7%) and over a third of students frequently discuss their career plans with their instructor or advisors (43.1%). Other findings indicated that part-time students made class presentations less often than their full-time counterparts, prepared fewer drafts of assignments prior to submission, and came to class more often without completing readings or assignments. Evidence highlighted that, while part-time students and full-time students tended to differ across a variety of behavioral outcomes related to their academic effort, they differed less across measures of habits of mind. Findings also revealed that part-time students were more likely than full-time students to have lower cumulative grade point averages.

P a g e | 1

Office of Planning, Research, and Accreditation

INTRODUCTION

During a time when global economic

challenges have imposed new constraints

on higher education institutionsiii, including

shrinking financial support, the

undergraduate student population has

changed to include more part-time

students. Indeed, the number of part-time

undergraduates in higher education

doubled between 1970 and 1998 (from 2.8

million to 6 million)iv, which has increased

the importance of community collegesv.

Part-time students experience several

hurdles, including more financial difficulty

than full-time students, more student loan

debt, and less participation and

engagement with the collegevi. There is a

belief that the incidence of outside

employment for students is increasing,

causing detrimental effects on academic

performancevii, an empirically supported

assertionviii, ix, x.

What’s more, certain student

outcomes are found to share strong,

positive relationships with life-long learning

and life success. As students continue to

flock to community colleges in pursuit of

transfer to four-year institutions and to

complete a degree or certificate program,

exploring such outcomes is imperative. This

is especially important as legislators have

responded to public demands for evidence

of student success by increasing measures

of accountability.

One such outcome, labeled by

investigators as “habits of mind,” refers to a

way of thinking that enables students to

efficiently identify patterns, experiment

with ideas, effectively describe complex

processes, visualize alternative solutions,

and become innovatorsxi. When students

become active practitioners of habits of

mind, they tend to persist, manage

impulsivity, practice understanding and

empathy, reflect on their thinking

(metacognition), and strive for accuracy, in

addition to engaging in many other

documented positive behaviorsxii. Skills like

these, which may also relate to students’

academic success, are cultivated through

their interactions with peers and faculty

and are practiced through course-related

assignments.

At the same time, while we know

that students are becoming increasingly

reliant on funding sources outside of higher

education, less is known about how part-

time community college students compare

to their full-time counterparts across

measures of engagement and ways of

thinking. This study was designed to unpack

the rich ways in which students engage

their peers and faculty, in addition to

exploring differences, if any, between part-

time and full-time students on measures of

habits of mind. Finally, this work looks at

indicators of academic success, while

controlling for a variety of student

background characteristics. Broader

interpretations and implications are offered

for Saddleback College faculty and students.

P a g e | 2


3.1%

45.3%

10.1%

11.6%

11.6%

10.7%

7.6%

Figure 1. Respondents' Age

Under 18

18-24

25-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

Over 59

METHODS

Instrument. During the Fall 2012

term, the Office of Planning, Research, and

Accreditation (OPRA) developed and

implemented the first Saddleback College

survey related to students’ academic

behaviors. The development and

administration of the instrument was

spearheaded by the Office of Planning,

Research, and Accreditation (OPRA). The

initial construction of the instrument was

supported by a review of several other

fundamental measures, which helped form

this survey’s core themes. In addition to

fueling the college’s strategic planning

efforts, the instrument was designed to

holistically understand students’ academic

experiences and collected information

surrounding perceptions, academic

behaviors, and outcomes. Specifically, the

survey included items geared toward

understanding the population of students at

Saddleback College, including their

backgrounds, strategies for learning,

academic experiences, and intentions.

The survey was distributed via email

to a random sample of over 6,000 students

from a list of 22,523. The survey response

period was open from November 2012 to

January of 2013. Following the initial email

invitation to participate, three reminder

emails were distributed in November and

December of 2012 and January of 2013.

Exclusion criteria included zero registered

units or if a student had withdrawn. A total

of 496 students took the survey, resulting in

a 10% response rate, roughly. The

instrument consists of 42 items which cover

the four general areas of students’

background, behavior, support, and

outcomes.

Sample. Survey respondents were

primarily traditional college age students.

Indeed, 45.3 percent of the sample was

between the ages of 18 and 24. The

remaining respondents were evenly

distributed across age categories. It should

be noted that, for the purposes of analyses

in this report, students over the age

of 59 (Emeritus students) were

excluded from the sample. See

Figure 1 for a full break down of

respondents by age.

While nearly 40 percent of survey

respondents indicated enrollment in at

In addition to fueling the college’s strategic planning efforts, the

instrument was designed to holistically understand students’ academic

experiences and collected information surrounding perceptions,

academic behaviors, and outcomes.

P a g e | 3


63.2%

1.2%

8.3%

12.3%

8.3%

6.7%

Figure 2. Respondents' Ethnicity

White African-American

Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino

Other (non-white) More than one ethnicity

least 12 units, the majority of participants

were part-time students at Saddleback

College. What’s more, the majority of

respondents were female (68.4%), white

(63.2%), and native English speakers

(82.7%), with grade point averages between

3.0 and 4.0 (71.5%). Although the ethnic

composition of respondents was primarily

white, other represented groups were

Hispanic/Latino (12.3%), and Asian (7.7%)1.

See Figure 2 for descriptive information on

students’ ethnicity2.

Descriptives of the study’s sample

were compared with the population

parameters of Saddleback students to

explore potential threats to generalizability.

Specifically, the age, ethnicity, cumulative

GPA, and gender of the sample were

1 For the purpose of describing the initial sample, these figures include emeritus students. 2 The study’s sample was compared to the demographic information of the population. No noteworthy compromises to the representativeness of the sample were found.

compared with the population.

Comparisons did not reveal differences in

regard to ethnicity or age. However, the

proportion of women in the sample is much

higher than the population and the

disparity is further exaggerated by the fact

that men were underrepresented.

Consequently, results may be biased only in

regards to participants’ gender. What’s

more, a higher percentage of academically

successful students (GPA 3.01 – 4.00)

composed the sample, such that the

proportion of academically successful

students was nearly double in the sample

than in the Saddleback population. This is to

be expected, however, as GPA was a self-

reported measure.

In summary, while our findings

might not have threats to external validity

by age and ethnicity, we can reasonably

conclude that the generalizability of the

study is skewed toward academically

successful, female students. This further

confounds the study’s initial findings and

offers support to the argument that

differences between part-time and full-time

students were underestimated, which is

presented later in the report. However, GPA

was self-reported and such measures are

frequently overestimated when students

are asked to rate themselves. The disparity

between the measures of grade point

average might actually be less than

estimated here, since one measure of GPA

is not self-reported. See Tables 1, 2, 3, and

4 for a full comparison of sample

descriptives with population parameters.

P a g e | 4


Analyses. Data were analyzed using

several descriptive and inferential tools.

First, general frequency distributions were

inspected across items to get a sense of the

nature and characteristics of student data.

General measures of distributional shape

were explored, including histograms with

superimposed normal curve distributions to

detect any significant departures from

normality. These descriptive tools were

used primarily to contextualize students’

academic behaviors. Second, categorical

variables were cross-tabulated against one

another (two-way crosstabs) so as to

uncover emergent patterns and significant

relationships between key qualitative items.

Finally, advanced multivariate techniques

were used to explore behavioral indicators

of academically successful students at the

college. No predetermination of statistical

power or sample size was made.

This exploration of students’

characteristics, behaviors, and cognitive

indicators was guided by the following

questions:

1. What is the cognitive and behavioral

nature of Saddleback students’

academic behaviors?

2. Do students’ behavioral and

cognitive indicators differ between

part-time and full-time students?

3. Which student characteristics are

predictive of academic success at

Saddleback College?

FINDINGS

Data indicate that students’

academic behaviors are reflected through

their engagements with faculty and peers,

their ways of thinking, and their preparation

for coursework.

Cognitive and Behavioral3 Indicators

Students’ self-perceptions of

course-related engagements. This

investigation turned first to in-class

behaviors, which included students’

methods of learning and engagement.

While a majority (77.8%) reported spending

at least half of their time, or more, asking

questions in class and contributing to

course discussions, 22.3% of students

indicated very low to no levels of

engagement during class. What’s more, a

third to two thirds of Saddleback students

indicate building a presentation for class

(40.6%), preparing several drafts of an

assignment prior to submission (55.9%),

and integrating ideas or information on a

course assignment using multiple sources

(67.5%). See Figure 3 for a visual

representation of said academic behaviors.

Results also suggest that students are

engaging in the classroom in other ways

conducive to their academic success.

3 In this inquiry, cognition refers to patterns of thinking, attitudes, and dispositions. Behavioral markers are referred to as directly measurable constructs (e.g., students number of hours studying, or amount of time spent perform a task).

P a g e | 5


40.6%

55.9% 67.5%

34.3%

25.2%

22.0%

25.1% 19.0%

10.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Presentations Multiple Drafts Multiple Sources

Figure 3. Frequency of Academic Activities

Not at all

Infrequently

Frequently

Results revealed that a majority of

students at Saddleback College indicate

having read or completed their assignments

prior to coming to class more than half of

the time (87.4%). The majority of

Saddleback students also tend to

frequently4 discuss their grades with their

instructors (52.4%). In fact, findings

generally suggested that students at the

college are engaging their instructors in

several ways. Although students report

discussing ideas and engaging faculty

outside of class infrequently or not at all

4 The original scale on the 2012 survey instrument was divided into the four categories of more than half the time, at least half of the time, less than half of the time, or never. At places in this report, the scale was converted to frequencies, whereby frequently was conceptualized as half of the time or more.

(80.4%), they tend to perceive themselves

as working more frequently to meet

instructors’ standards or expectations

(70.4%). Likewise, students

engage their instructors through

e-mail (70.5%) more frequently

than not at all (6.7%) and over a

third of students frequently

discuss their career plans with

their instructor or advisors

(43.1%). In addition to engaging

their instructors, Saddleback

students interact with their peers

in ways that might affect their

outcomes and academic

experiences.

Data suggest that just

under half of students worked

with other students on projects during class

(47.5%). While a sizeable proportion of

students report lower levels of interaction

with their peers outside of class (52.5%),

Saddleback students appear to interact with

their classmates in other ways. For

example, the majority of students engage

one another more frequently with regard to

their religious beliefs, political opinions, and

personal values (65.8%). Apart from

engagements with faculty and peers, data

suggest that students practice certain

patterns of thinking, which may be related

to their academic success.

Students’ habits of mind and

cognitive indices of students’ academic

behavior and development. Overall,

students report engaging more frequently

in a variety of cognitive traits that may be

P a g e | 6


75.0%

18.5%

6.5% 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Synthesize ideas, information, or experiences

Figure 4. Frequency of higher-order intellectual exercise.

Frequently Infrequently Not at all

related to their experiences and academic

behaviors at the college. The vast majority

of students report having to memorize

facts, ideas, or methods during their

coursework in order to repeat them in the

same form (75.4%), which may represent a

type of rote learning and memorization.

Indeed, 75% of Saddleback students report

spending half of their time or more

synthesizing and organizing their ideas,

information, or experiences in new ways.

Findings also revealed more frequent

engagement in higher level intellectual

tasks, like making judgments about the

value or soundness of information (70.5%),

applying concepts to practical problems

(70.5%), and using course information to

perform a new skill (81%). Overall, most

survey respondents indicated engaging in

activities related to cultivating habits of

mind about half the time or more (n =

291)5. See Figure 4.

Students’ Academic preparation

and investments. Data are variable in

regard to the extent to which students

prepare for their academic and intellectual

pursuits6. The majority of survey

respondents report having between one

and four assigned textbooks or similar

course materials during a term (51.1%),

while the remainder of students reported

having more than five textbooks per term.

Also, just over half of students indicate

having to write term papers longer than five

pages (50.9%).

An inspection of a Pearson’s r

correlation matrix revealed several

statistically significant relationships

between the three previously mentioned

academic demands and students’ effort. For

instance, results suggest that the more

books that Saddleback faculty assign to

students, the more likely students are to

report reading for pleasure (r = .11, p < .05),

and engage more frequently in writing

course papers (r = .33, p < .01)7. Likewise,

students who are assigned more course

readings and writings are likely to devote

5 This figure was extracted from a frequency distribution for the item labeled as synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences in new ways. 6 Nearly 60% of this study’s sample consisted of part-time students. There is reason to believe that part-time students may behave differently than their full-time counterparts. 7 It should be noted that these findings do not imply causality, as all data were collected at a single point in time and other experimental criteria were not met in the design of this investigation.

P a g e | 7


3.08

3.40

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Full-time Students Part-time Students

Figure 5. Mean frequencies of coming to class unprepared.

more time to prepare for class (r = .22, p <

.01). On the other hand, students who felt

they had more course writings were less

likely to spend time synthesizing new

information (r = -.17, p < .01), less likely to

apply theories or concepts to practical

problems (r = -.11, p < .05), and less likely to

think critically and analytically (r = -.16, p <

.01)8.

To more fully unpack these

descriptive patterns regarding students’

course-related engagements, ways of

thinking, and academic preparations, this

study turned to the second question: Do

students’ behavioral and cognitive

indicators differ by their background

characteristics? To answer this question,

differences were explored by part-time

status.

Students’ Background Characteristics

Part-time versus full-time students.

There is reason to suspect that this study’s

descriptive findings might be explained, at

least in part, by a student’s enrollment

status, as a large portion of the sample

consisted of students enrolled in fewer

than 12 units of coursework. Specifically,

55.9% of the study’s sample consisted of

part-time students, compared to 52% at

Saddleback. Prior to exploring group

differences, students’ reasons for not

enrolling full-time were explored. Data

indicate that while 39.4% of participants

8 While some study variables were found to have a significant relationship, the strength of such variables was no stronger than moderate.

did not intend to enroll full-time, nearly 8%

of students wanted to enroll full-time, but

classes were already full. Of students that

did not intend to enroll full-time, 18.3%

reported having work obligations, 5.5%

expressed financial worries, and 5% had

concerns about their academic success. To

further explore differences between full-

time and part-time status, t-tests were run

on the data with attention to examining

variance equality between groups. See

Appendix A for a full display of difference

testing between the two groups.

Results revealed that part-time and

full-time students differed from one

another across several outcomes. A two-

tailed significance test indicated that part-

time students made class presentations less

often than their full-time counterparts (t =

-2.61, p < .05), prepared fewer drafts of

assignments prior to submission (t = -3.46, p

< .01, and came to class more often without

completing readings or assignments (t =

-3.89, p < .01). See Figure 5 for a graphical

representation of group

means.

P a g e | 8


Further analysis of group differences

on academic behaviors showed that part-

time students tended to work less with

classmates outside of class (t = -5.27, p <

.01), to communicate with instructors less

via e-mail (t = -2.90, p < .01), and to discuss

grades or assignments with faculty less

frequently than their full-time colleagues (t

= -3.05, p < .01). Following academic

behaviors, students’ patterns of thinking

was explored.

Habits of mind comparisons

between part-time and full-time students.

Evidence highlighted that while part-

time students and full-time students tended

to differ across a variety of behavioral

outcomes related to their academic effort,

they differed less across measures of habits

of mind. That is, both student subgroupings

are more similar than they are different on

estimates of analytical thinking, including

their evaluation of the value or soundness

of information, and the application of

theoretical concepts to new problems.

Although part-time and full-time

students did not differ across complex ways

of thinking and knowing, they did

differentially engage their peers in ways

that influence their beliefs and attitudes.

Results suggest that full-time students have

serious conversations with classmates who

differ in religious, political, and personal

beliefs more frequently than part-time

students (t = -4.24, p < .01). Likewise, on

average, part-time students had fewer

conversations with students of a different

race or ethnicity than their full-time

counterparts (t = -3.90, p < .01). Given that

results suggested several differences across

both attitudinal and behavioral measures of

part-time and full-time students, this

investigation was interested with regard to

the extent to which such markers shared

relationships with tangible student

outcomes, like grade point average. Turning

to this study’s final interest, data were

analyzed to respond to the following

question: Which student characteristics are

predictive of academic success at

Saddleback College?

Demarcating Academic Success

Data were analyzed using an ordinal,

logistic regression technique, or a

proportional odds modeling approach, to

understand how student characteristics

contributed to their success at Saddleback

College. As mentioned, this was done given

emergent findings which suggested

significant differences in students’ attitudes

and behaviors. As part of the iterative

model-building process, students’ full-time

and part-time statuses were inspected first.

Findings revealed that part-time students

were more likely than full-time students to

have lower cumulative grade point averages

(GPA’s9), such that the odds of obtaining

GPA’s between 3.01 and 4.00 versus the

combined lower categories of GPA are 0.61

times lower for part-time students

compared to full-time students. Likewise,

the odds for full-time students earning

9 Cumulative grade point average was self-reported and the case for bias and confound could be made.

P a g e | 9


Figure 6. Cumulative percentages of Latino and white students.

GPA’s of the combined lower, less

academically successful categories is 0.61

times lower for full-time students than for

part-time students.

To gain a richer portrait of

academically successful Saddleback

students, several other behavioral and

attitudinal measures were added into the

model in an iterative fashion. Findings

suggest that more academically

successful students at the college

(i.e., students with higher

cumulative grade point averages)

tended to be older, to engage more

frequently in new ways that

synthesized and organized course-

related information, and came to

class with completed assignments

more often.

Finally, students’ ethnicity

was explored to determine group

differences in academic

achievement. White students

served as the reference group. For

some, students’ ethnic

background was found to share

relationship with their academic success.

Asian and Latino students were found to

generally have lower cumulative GPAs than

their white counterparts. For instance, the

odds for Latino students of earning lower

GPA’s (i.e., combined categories of 0 – 3.00)

were 3.75 times higher than for white

students. See Figure 6 for a graphical

representation of Latino and white

students’ cumulative percentages grouped

by GPA categories10. Other student

background characteristics did not emerge

as significant predictors11 of their academic

success. Taken together, these findings

offer important implications and

conclusions for Saddleback college and

student success.

This exploration into Saddleback

students’ academic lives responded to three

questions. Results revealed that students’ 10 Although this significant finding in relation to a student’s ethnic background suggests that ethnicity plays an important role in students’ academic achievement, other races were not explored or controlled for as a consequence of very low group sizes. 11 Chi-square values of both the test of parallel lines and goodness of fit were inspected to determine whether or not a major assumption of the preferred test was met. It was concluded that no anomalies were found and assumptions were satisfied.

P a g e | 10


generally came to class prepared, used a

variety of techniques to learn, and more

often called upon higher-order thinking

skills to synthesize and generalize course-

related information. Findings also

demonstrated differences between part-

time and full-time students in terms of their

engagement with peers and faculty and

differences between ethnic groups in terms

of their achievement. There are three

overarching implications for Saddleback

College, connected to this study.

Implications

First, the characteristics and nature

of students learning techniques offer

implications for college faculty. Provided

that nearly a quarter of students indicate

low to no active engagement or

participation in class, faculty might reflect

on current teaching practices. Engagement

and participation, for instance, might be

maximized with a more student-centered

pedagogyxiii, like the Socratic methodxiv.

Evidence suggests that implementing a

more student-centered teaching

approachxv, one that moves away from

lecture formatting, elevates student

engagement. Similarly, faculty ought to

consider diversifying types of assignments

for students, such that course objectives

require a variety of types of evidence of

student learning.

Second, the patterns of students’

course-related participation and habits of

mind suggest that some practices might

provide stronger benefits to students. For

instance, the finding that students who felt

they had more course writings were less

likely to spend time synthesizing new

information, less likely to apply concepts to

practical problems, and less likely to think

critically and analytically ought to be

interpreted carefully by faculty considering

any shifts in their methods and techniques.

It is likely not the case that written

assignments do not cultivate students’

habits of mindxvi, but might be stronger

indicator of a different student profile.

Third, faculty and administration

must consider the assertion that part-time

students are less likely to persist than their

full-time counterpartsxvii. Students with a

part-time enrollment status are more likely

to experience personal and financial

barriers than full-time studentsxviii. Such

barriers might explain the finding that part-

time students tended to prepare fewer

drafts of assignments prior to submission

and came to class more often without

completing readings or assignments. This

was further evidenced by the fact that the

majority of part-time students indicated

work as the primary reason for preventing

them from enrolling full-time.

Work and other factors identified

from this inquiry as preventing students

from enrolling full-time also may explain

the significant differences in regards to

their peer engagements. This study found

that full-time students have serious

conversations with peers who differ in

religious, political, and personal beliefs

more frequently than part-time students.

P a g e | 11


As mentioned, part-time students

experience a host of obligations that call

them away from the college campus, which

might disable them in regards to their

engagement with their colleagues. It is,

also, important to note that, while part-

time and full-time students engaged

similarly across several measures, like

habits of mind, the sample of this study was

predominantly composed of students with

GPA’s higher than 3.0. It is likely the case,

therefore, that those measures highlighting

similarities between part-time and full-time

students are overestimated, given that

respondents across the sample tended to

be academically successful. This further

suggests that estimates of differences might

also be underestimated, with students’

mean level of academic success weighting

down differences across measures.

Finally, two general

recommendations for future empirical

inquiry are offered to help complicate our

understanding of Saddleback students’

academic experiences. First, data must be

collected longitudinally so as to develop

strong baseline measures of students’

incoming traits. Second, student-level data

should be connected to faculty-level data,

like perceptions of student behaviors and

general goals for education. Such an

undertaking allows for a clearer image of a

variety of educational phenomena to

emerge, including the effects of course

characteristics on student learning.

P a g e | 12


Table 1

Comparison between sample and population by age

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Below 18 721 3% 10 3%

18-21 9951 36% 148 45%

22-29 5967 22% 33 10%

30-39 2364 9% 38 12%

40-49 1666 6% 38 12%

50-59 1519 6% 35 11%

Over 59 5097 19% 25 8%

Undefined 4 0%

Grand Total 27289 100% 327 100%

Table 2

Comparison between sample and population by ethnicity


African American 519 2% 4 1%

Asian 2670 10% 25 8%

Decline to State 1377 5% 12 4%

Hispanic / Latino 2760 10% 40 12%

Middle Eastern 30 0% 12 4%

Mixed Ethnicity 3513 13% 22 7%

Native American 76 0% 1 0%

Other Non-White 32 0% 2 1%

Pacific Islander 59 0% 2 1%

White, Non-Hispanic 16253 60% 206 63%

Grand Total 27289 100% 326 100%

Table 3

Comparison between sample and population by gender


Decline 437 2% unknown unknown

Female 15727 58% 225 68%

Male 11125 41% 104 32%

Grand Total 27289 100% 329 100%

Table 4

Comparison between sample and population by GPA

Population


0.00-1.00 5347 20% 3 1%

1.01-2.00 3181 12% 12 4%

2.01-3.00 7711 28% 78 24%

3.01-4.00 11050 40% 233 71%

Grand Total 27289 100% 326 100%

Sample

Population

Population

Population Sample

Sample

Sample

P a g e | 13


Table 5

Differences between part-time and full-time students across select academic behaviors and habits of mind

Academic Behaviors FT Student mean Sig.

Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

Made a class presentation *

Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment **

before submission

Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas *

from multiple sources

Came to class without completing readings or assignments ***

Worked with other students on projects during class **

Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments ***

Tutored or taught other students *

Participated in a community-based project as part of a course **

project

Used the internet or instant-messaging to work on an assignment **

Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor **

Discussed grades or an assignment with an instructor **

Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor

Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors

outside of class

Received prompt feedback from instructors on your performance

Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's

standards or expectations

Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework

Discussed ideas from readings or class with others outside of class

(students, family members, co-workers, etc)

Habits of Mind and Thinking Patterns

Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ***

ethnicity other than your own

Had serious conversations with students who differ in terms of ***

their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal value

Skipped class

Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from course and readings **

Analyzing basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory

Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences

Making judgments about the value or soundness of information

arguments, or methods

Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new

situations

Using information you have read or heard to perform a new skill

*p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001

1.71

3.42

1.73

1.72

1.91

1.89

1.86

1.99

2.02

3.41

2.13

2.30

2.56

3.16

1.84

1.79

2.21

2.59

3.08

1.91

1.78

1.82

2.542.18

1.91

3.09

2.35

2.53

3.26

3.01

3.53

2.04

1.90

1.94

2.07

3.24

2.05

2.10

3.58

2.30

2.74

3.45

3.47

2.18

2.07

2.51

2.73

PT Student mean1.79

2.80

2.54

2.16

3.39

2.65

3.06

P a g e | 14


Appendix A

2012 Academic Behaviors Survey Instrument

1. Did you begin at Saddleback or at another college?

•Started here

•Started somewhere else

2. Is this your first semester at Saddleback College? (yes, no)

3. Thinking about this current academic term, how would you describe your enrollment at Saddleback

College?

• Full-time (I am enrolled in at least 12 units)

•Part-time (I am enrolled in less than 12 units)

•It was not my intent to enroll full-time (in at least 12 units)

4. What is the primary reason you have chosen to enroll part-time (in less than 12 units)?

•I wanted to enroll full-time (in at least 12 units), but the classes I needed

were already full

•I wanted to enroll full-time (in at least 12 units), but the class I needed were not offered at

times that would work with my schedule

•It was not my intent to enroll full-time (in at least 12 units)

5. If it was not your intent to enroll full-time (in at least 23 units), what was your reason?

•Work

•Other commitments

•Finances

•Concerns about academic success

•Other

6. When choosing classes in which to enroll, please indicate how frequently you do any of the

following when you register for the term. (always, often, seldom, never)

•Select a class schedule that is based upon the requirements to meet educational goals

or program requirements

•Make an appointment with a counselor to discuss appropriate classes in which to enroll

•Use online sources (such as ratemyprofessor.com) to make a decision about registering for

classes

•Select classes based upon your work schedule

•Look for online classes rather than traditional classes

•Try to enroll in the same classes friends are taking

•Select classes based upon knowledge about the instructor and course material

•Look for courses at other colleges when courses at Saddleback are full

•Register for short-term classes (fewer than 16 weeks)

•Refer to your academic plan when selecting classes

•Discuss the classes you are thinking about taking with an instructor

•Look for classes offered on campus during the late afternoon or evening

•Discuss the classes you are thinking about taking with your friends

•Look for classes offered on campus during the day

•Take into consideration pre-requisite or placement recommendations prior to enrolling

•Look for classes offered on campus on the weekend

7. Thinking about your experiences at Saddleback College during the current term, about how often

have you done each of the following? (more than half the time, about half the time, less than

half the time, never)

P a g e | 15


P a g e | 16


P a g e | 17


P a g e | 18


P a g e | 19


REFERENCES ii Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1997). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165. iii Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press. iv O'Toole, D. M., Stratton, L. S., & Wetzel, J. N. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of the frequency of part-time enrollment and the persistence of students who enroll part time. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 519-537. v Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1997). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165. vi Callender, C., & Kemp, M. (2000). Changing Student Finances: Income, Expenditure and Take-up of Student Loans among Full-and Part-time higher education students in 1998/9. vii Ford, J., Bosworth, D., & Wilson, R. (1995). Part-time work and full-time higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 187-202. viii Hunt, A., Lincoln, I., & Walker, A. (2004). Term-time employment and academic attainment: evidence from a large-scale survey of undergraduates at Northumbria University. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(1), 3-18. ix Callender, C. (2008). The impact of term-time employment on higher education students’ academic attainment and achievement. Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 359-377. x Metcalf, H. (2003). Increasing inequality in higher education: the role of term-time working. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 315-329. xi Cuoco, A., Paul Goldenberg, E., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375-402.

xii Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. ASCD. xiii Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104-108. xiv Hawkins-Leon, C. G. (1998). Socratic Method-Problem Method Dichotomy: The Debate Over Teaching Method Continues, The. BYU Educ. & LJ, 1. xv Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 1-23. xvi Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3-24. xvii Laird, T. F. N., & Cruce, T. M. (2009). Individual and environmental effects of part-time enrollment status on student-faculty interaction and self-reported gains. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 290-314. xviii King, J. E. (2003). Nontraditional attendance and persistence: The cost of students' choices. New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(121), 69-83.

Date post:	07-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangxuyen
View:	240 times
Download:	0 times

Academic Behaviors: Cognitive and Behavioral … Behaviors: Cognitive and Behavioral Characteristics...

Documents