Micael ela a Mercado ado, , Ph.D. Candidate date School of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Micael ela a Mercado ado, , Ph.D. Candidate date School of Social Work Univers rsity ity of North Carolin ina a at Chapel Hill October er 9, 2011

2 Micaela Mercado, Ph.D. Candidate School of Social Work University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Contact email: mmphd@unc.edu 18th National Conference on Students in Transition, St. Louis, MO October 9, 2011

Examining the Effects of Learning Communities on Students’ Engagement in Community Colleges

3

Introduction Theory Methods Results Implications

4

Compared to 4-year institutions…

5

Parental education level by race/ethnicity, 2003-04 (n=7,900)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, First Follow-up (BPS:04/06).

6

3-years 6-years

7 Percent Change In Employment, by education 2008-2018 (projected)

8

Educational Institution Challenge

Informal and formal environmental structures: Programs, services, courses, study groups, professional

• rganizations, learning

communities, study skill courses, mentoring At-risk students lack academic &/or social preparedness

Supports

Assistance navigating the system, information, resources, guidance, opportunities

The Community College Environment:

Factors conducive to promoting student engagement, persistence, and degree attainment

9

academic courses integrated within a social environment designed to promote learning and engage students in class/college assumption that students who participate build relationships with faculty & peers are more likely to succeed in college

10

• 1. Which students participated in LCs?

Research Questions

• 2. What was the impact of LCs on active-collaborative learning?

Student-faculty interactions? And, students’ academic performances?

• 3. Did the impact of LCs vary by minority and first-generation

status?

11

Data Source: Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Variable Frequency (%) Female 8,248 (64%) Race: White 8,301 (65%) Black 1,645 (13%) Hispanic 1,512 (12%) Traditional 8,601 (67%) First-generation College 3,375 (33%) HS diploma/GED 9,893(77%) Variable Frequency (%) Started here 9,435 (74%) Full-time 10,441 (82%) Degree goal: Certificate 1,034 (8%) AA 5,449 (43%) Both 3,411 (27%) Work: 20 hrs < LT 7,467 (59%) Dependents: 1+hrs 7,645 (60%) Intervention Sample Completed Plan to Enroll Learning Community 35,761 12,816 (36%) 22,945 (64%) Completed Learning Community:

Behavior: Engagement Active-collaborative learning Student-faculty interactions Academic performance

Pre-College Characteristics:

• Gender
• Race
• Age
• Generational status
• Marital status
• Academic credential
• College status
• Enrollment status
• Degree goal
• Work hours
• Income
• Dependents

Learning community

College Experience

• Perceived college support
• Social service participation
• Peer relations
• Instructor relations
• Administrative relations
• Intervention control

Intervention (Treatment) Outcome Independent Variables

12

Analytical Model

Persistence Degree attainment

13

Dependent Variables

Active-Collaborative Learning scale Student-Faculty Interactions scale Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Used email to communicate with an instructor Made a class presentation Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Worked with other students on projects during class Talked about career plans with an instructor

• r advisor

Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework Participated in a community-based project as a part of a regular course Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

Scale: 0=Never 1=Sometimes 2=Often 3=Very often

14

Propensity Score Weighting

Neyman-Rubin counterfactual framework

Yi = WiY1i + (1 – Wi) Y0i

Y0i, Y1i two potential outcomes; Wi=1 denotes receipt of treatment, Wi=0 denotes no receipt of treatment; and Yi is the measured outcome variable.

Estimates of counterfactual are examined by:

E(Y0|W=0) comprises the mean outcome of the nontreatment group; & E(Y1|W=1) comprises the mean outcome of the treatment group.

• observed outcome
• unobserved outcome

τ= E(Y1|W=1) – E(Y0|W=0).

15

16 p<.05; * p<.01; *** p<.001***

Variable Log Odds S.E. Gender: Men 0.77*** 0.02 Race: White African American Hispanic Other 0.57*** 0.65*** 0.82*** 0.02 0.03 0.04 Age: Traditional age student 0.97 0.03 First-generation status 0.85*** 0.02 Academic credential 1.65*** 0.06 Started at college 1.01 0.03 Enrollment: Full-time 1.54*** 0.05 Logistic regression predicting participation in LCs (n= 35,761)

RQ1: Which students participate in LCs?

17

RQ1: Which students participate in LCs?

Lower odds of participating in LCs

• Men
• African American students
• Hispanic students
• First-generation college students

Higher odds of participating in LCs

• Students with a certificate or college degree
• Full-time students

18

RQ 2 & 3: The Effect of LCs on Outcomes

Active- Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interactions Academic performance (College GPA) Avg. Treatment Effect

0.83 (.11)*** 0.31 (.09)*** 0.04 ( .02)

LC*Gender

• 0.26 (.09)**

LC*African American

0.28 (.12)*

LC*Enrollment

0.25(.11)* 0.38(.09)*** 0.05(.02)*

*Hispanic and First-generation status

• Clustering
• Covariate structure

19

• CC population
• Institutional/formal programs
• Unobservables
• Implementation
• Methodology
• Treatment effects

20

Implications

Identify and strengthen key programmatic features of LCs to better promote active-collaborative learning, student-faculty interactions, and academic performance Assess students’ academic and social progress over time Build mechanisms within curricula to promote meaningful learning activities, collaborative learning between students, and student-faculty interactions Assist Men, First-Generation, Hispanic and African American students actualize their educational objectives

Implications for Practice

21

Study Implications

Not all CCs offer LCs Create opportunities for academic success LCs effectiveness Complement LCs with academic and social services that target engagement, and academic performance Long-term effects of LCs Sustain efforts that increase students academic and social involvement at the institution (i.e., data-driven systems)

Implications for Policy

22