Urban Universities: Urban Universities: Student Characteristics Student Characteristics

and Engagementand Engagement

Donna HawleyDonna Hawley

Martha ShawverMartha Shawver

Exploratory Project Exploratory Project ObjectivesObjectives

Explore selected characteristics of the Explore selected characteristics of the students attending an urban students attending an urban university as they may relate to 15 university as they may relate to 15 aggregated engagement scores aggregated engagement scores (called Scalelets) (called Scalelets)

Stimulate discussion among and Stimulate discussion among and about urban universities and about urban universities and engagementengagement

Consider additional workConsider additional work

SequenceSequence

Urban universities and NSSE scoresUrban universities and NSSE scores Possible areas of difference between urban Possible areas of difference between urban

schools and total NSSE participantsschools and total NSSE participants The Urban ConsortiumThe Urban Consortium Characteristics of students reviewed for Characteristics of students reviewed for

this projectthis project Scalelets as developed by Gary PikeScalelets as developed by Gary Pike ResultsResults DiscussionDiscussion

Urban UniversitiesUrban Universities

Located in an economically and Located in an economically and socially diverse urban areasocially diverse urban area

Serves a diverse student body with Serves a diverse student body with high percentages of part time, high percentages of part time, commuting and ‘older’ studentscommuting and ‘older’ students

Educational activities are closely Educational activities are closely linked to the city’s business, industry, linked to the city’s business, industry, and culture with an interaction that is and culture with an interaction that is viewed as mutually beneficial. viewed as mutually beneficial.

NSSE Engagement NSSE Engagement

Scores from urban schools are Scores from urban schools are different from the total NSSE sample different from the total NSSE sample (2005)(2005)

Differences are minimal for many Differences are minimal for many itemsitems

Conventional thought is that many Conventional thought is that many differences may be related to differences may be related to characteristics of students who attend characteristics of students who attend urban schoolsurban schools

Examples of differences between Examples of differences between urban and other universitiesurban and other universities

Areas of time usageAreas of time usage– EmploymentEmployment– Participation in co-curricular activitiesParticipation in co-curricular activities– Care of dependentsCare of dependents– Commuting to campusCommuting to campus

Activities outside the classroomActivities outside the classroom– Working on committeesWorking on committees– Attending eventsAttending events– Using servicesUsing services

Time Usage DifferencesTime Usage Differences

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Urban

NSSETotal

Participation in Activities Participation in Activities Outside the ClassroomOutside the Classroom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Urban

NSSETotal

Urban Consortium Urban Consortium

NSSE encourages participants to NSSE encourages participants to form consortiaform consortia– To ask “additional context-and-mission To ask “additional context-and-mission

specific questions”specific questions”– To share ideas, issues and questionsTo share ideas, issues and questions– Comparative aggregate resultsComparative aggregate results

One such consortium is the urban One such consortium is the urban universitiesuniversities

Urban Consortium Urban Consortium QuestionsQuestions

Time commitments and issues related Time commitments and issues related to community, family, employment to community, family, employment that may affect one’s education, that may affect one’s education, including time to degree and hours including time to degree and hours enrolledenrolled

Financial issuesFinancial issues Career goals and desired outcomes Career goals and desired outcomes

from the degree program from the degree program Satisfaction with academic and family Satisfaction with academic and family

support support

MethodologyMethodology

12 dichotomous groups were formed using 12 dichotomous groups were formed using student characteristics (i.e. demographic, student characteristics (i.e. demographic, academic, enrollment, time usage) that may academic, enrollment, time usage) that may affect engagementaffect engagement

Characteristics were based on questions Characteristics were based on questions from the Urban Consortium and selected from the Urban Consortium and selected NSSE itemsNSSE items

The 12 groups were compared for each of The 12 groups were compared for each of the 15 scalelets as developed by Pike (2006) the 15 scalelets as developed by Pike (2006)

Only one institution was usedOnly one institution was used

Methodology (cont.)Methodology (cont.) Only seniors (N=273) are included due to Only seniors (N=273) are included due to

their more extensive experience with the their more extensive experience with the universityuniversity

2005 NSSE results 2005 NSSE results Means for the 15 scalelets for each group Means for the 15 scalelets for each group

were calculatedwere calculated The differences by each group were The differences by each group were

determined by t-testdetermined by t-test Effect sizes were calculated (difference Effect sizes were calculated (difference

between two means/pooled standard between two means/pooled standard deviation) for those with significant p valuesdeviation) for those with significant p values

Demographic Demographic CharacteristicsCharacteristics

Nontraditional (age): 50% of seniors Nontraditional (age): 50% of seniors are over 25 yearsare over 25 years

First generation: 37% of seniors have First generation: 37% of seniors have parents who did not attend college. parents who did not attend college.

Commuter: 91% of seniors commute Commuter: 91% of seniors commute by car to campusby car to campus

Low income: 46% seniors report family Low income: 46% seniors report family incomes<25,000incomes<25,000

Characteristics by Time Characteristics by Time UsageUsage

Employed off campus:Employed off campus:47% work >15 hours per week47% work >15 hours per week30.0% do not work off campus and another 30.0% do not work off campus and another

30% work more than 30 hours per week30% work more than 30 hours per week On Campus Hours: 28% spend more On Campus Hours: 28% spend more

than 5 hours per week on campus than 5 hours per week on campus outside of classoutside of class

Community Service: 50% spend some Community Service: 50% spend some hours per week in community activitieshours per week in community activities

Enrollment CharacteristicsEnrollment Characteristics

Native Student: <=15 transfer hours. Native Student: <=15 transfer hours. 31% have less than 15 transfer hours 31% have less than 15 transfer hours

Full time Enrollment: 34% report Full time Enrollment: 34% report always enrolling full time. (60% were always enrolling full time. (60% were enrolled full time in spring 2005)enrolled full time in spring 2005)

Time to degree: 67% report <=6 Time to degree: 67% report <=6 yearsyears

Academic CharacteristicsAcademic Characteristics

ACT Composite: ACT Composite: 62% >=2262% >=22

25% of seniors do not have an ACT score25% of seniors do not have an ACT score Delay: 27% report that family Delay: 27% report that family

commitments could delay their commitments could delay their graduationgraduation

NSSE Scalelets*NSSE Scalelets*

A set of items that collectively relate to A set of items that collectively relate to a specific concept or educational a specific concept or educational experienceexperience

Limited number of itemsLimited number of items Pike’s research supports that the Pike’s research supports that the

scalelets yield dependable scores scalelets yield dependable scores based on samples of 25-50based on samples of 25-50

Scalelets are subsets of the NSSE Scalelets are subsets of the NSSE benchmarks plus outcome measuresbenchmarks plus outcome measures*Pike, GR. The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of NSSE Scalelet Scores, Journal of College Student Development,

47:5, 2006.

The ScaleletsThe Scalelets

Academic ChallengeAcademic Challenge– Course Challenge (5)Course Challenge (5)– Writing (5)Writing (5)– Higher-Order Thinking Higher-Order Thinking

Skills (5)Skills (5) Active/Collaborative Active/Collaborative

– Active Learning (3)Active Learning (3)– Collaborative Learning Collaborative Learning

(4)(4) Interaction - FacultyInteraction - Faculty

– Course interaction (3)Course interaction (3)– Out-of-Class (3)Out-of-Class (3)

Enriching Enriching ExperiencesExperiences– Varied Experiences (9)Varied Experiences (9)– Information Technology Information Technology

(3)(3)– Diversity (3)Diversity (3)

Supportive CampusSupportive Campus– Student Success (3)Student Success (3)– Interpersonal environ. (3)Interpersonal environ. (3)

Outcome MeasuresOutcome Measures– Practical Skills (3)Practical Skills (3)– General Education (4)General Education (4)

Effect SizesEffect Sizes

Standardized difference between two Standardized difference between two means score means score

NSSE authors call it “practical NSSE authors call it “practical significance”significance”

GenerallyGenerally0.20 small effect0.20 small effect

0.50 medium effect0.50 medium effect

0.80 large effect0.80 large effect

ResultsResults

There were no differences between:There were no differences between:– Native vs. Transfer studentsNative vs. Transfer students– First generation vs. those with college First generation vs. those with college

educated parentseducated parents– Incomes >25,000 vs. those <25,000Incomes >25,000 vs. those <25,000

The magnitude of differences The magnitude of differences between all groups was smallbetween all groups was small

Effect sizes were small to moderateEffect sizes were small to moderate

ResultsResults

Nontraditional students (>25) were less Nontraditional students (>25) were less likely to participate in out of class likely to participate in out of class activities (.47) and varied learning activities (.47) and varied learning experiences (.24) than their younger peersexperiences (.24) than their younger peers

Students reporting that they always Students reporting that they always enrolled full time reported that their enrolled full time reported that their courses involved more higher-order courses involved more higher-order thinking skills (.44) and more collaborative thinking skills (.44) and more collaborative learning (.33) than those enrolling part learning (.33) than those enrolling part timetime

Time to Degree and ACTTime to Degree and ACT

Students planning for degree completion in 6 years compared to taking longer– Participated in varied Participated in varied

learning activities learning activities (.35)(.35)

– Work with faculty Work with faculty outside of class (.34)outside of class (.34)

– Reported more gains Reported more gains in practical skills (.34) in practical skills (.34) and from general and from general education (.33)education (.33)

Act score >=22 Act score >=22 compared to those compared to those with lower scoreswith lower scores– Reported their Reported their

courses as more courses as more challenging (.40) challenging (.40) and involving writing and involving writing (.38)(.38)

– Were involved in Were involved in active learning active learning activities (.49) and activities (.49) and course interaction course interaction (.37)(.37)

Results: Commuter students compared Results: Commuter students compared to those living on or near campus*to those living on or near campus*

Less likely to participate in activities in and Less likely to participate in activities in and outside of class: outside of class: – Collaborate (.49) with other studentsCollaborate (.49) with other students– Work with faculty outside class (.70)Work with faculty outside class (.70)– Participate in varied experiences (.63)Participate in varied experiences (.63)– Have conversations with those from other race Have conversations with those from other race

or ethnic or cultural groups (.63)or ethnic or cultural groups (.63) Less likely to see the campus as supportive Less likely to see the campus as supportive

(.63) (.63) Less likely to establish relationships with Less likely to establish relationships with

students, faculty and administrators (.54)students, faculty and administrators (.54)*Commuter students >90% of seniors

Results: Students spending more than 5 Results: Students spending more than 5 hours per week (28%) on campus outside of hours per week (28%) on campus outside of

class compared to those with 0-5 hours.class compared to those with 0-5 hours. More likely participate in activities in and More likely participate in activities in and

outside of class: outside of class: – Course interaction about grades, readings, Course interaction about grades, readings,

feedback (.44)feedback (.44)– Work with faculty outside class (.70)Work with faculty outside class (.70)– Participate in varied experiences (.46)Participate in varied experiences (.46)– Have conversations with those from other race Have conversations with those from other race

or ethnic or cultural groups (.50)or ethnic or cultural groups (.50) More likely to see courses as challenging More likely to see courses as challenging

(.38)(.38)

Results: Students doing any community Results: Students doing any community service compared to those doing none (50%)service compared to those doing none (50%)

More likely to participate in activities in More likely to participate in activities in and outside of class: and outside of class: – Course interaction about grades, readings, Course interaction about grades, readings,

feedback (.30)feedback (.30)– Work with faculty outside class (.40)Work with faculty outside class (.40)– Participate in varied experiences (.64)Participate in varied experiences (.64)– Have conversations with those from other race Have conversations with those from other race

or ethnic or cultural groups (.28)or ethnic or cultural groups (.28) More likely to see their courses as More likely to see their courses as

involving writing (.27), higher order involving writing (.27), higher order learning (.28 challenging (.38), and learning (.28 challenging (.38), and actively participate in classes (.40) actively participate in classes (.40)

LimitationsLimitations

Only one schoolOnly one school Only one yearOnly one year Only seniorsOnly seniors Intercorrelations between characteristics Intercorrelations between characteristics

studied are commonstudied are common Multivariate analyses should be Multivariate analyses should be

consideredconsidered Other factors not considered may be Other factors not considered may be

importantimportant

Conclusion and DiscussionConclusion and Discussion

Students who do not work, live on campus, Students who do not work, live on campus, are young, have higher ACT scores, enroll are young, have higher ACT scores, enroll full time, and spend time on campus full time, and spend time on campus outside of class are more engaged than outside of class are more engaged than other students at one urban university.other students at one urban university.

While the differences between the groups While the differences between the groups studied are moderate based on effect size, studied are moderate based on effect size, additional consideration of these issues additional consideration of these issues would be of interest. would be of interest.