BELONGING AND ENGAGEMENT: PREDICTING ACADEMIC SUCCESS ACROSS STAGES OF TRANSFER STUDENT TRANSITION Georgianna Martin, Ph.D. Forrest Lane, Ph.D.
Contact Information Forrest est Lane Dallas Independent School District folane@dallasisd.org Georgi gianna nna Martin University of Southern Mississippi Georgianna.martin@usm.edu
INTRODUCTION Engagement is a critical component for college student success (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Can result in higher grades, feelings of satisfaction, increased self- esteem, teamwork and collaboration, and responsibility and accountability in learning (Kuh, 2001). More likely to be motivated toward learning and students engaged in learning activities are more likely to persist (Duncan & McKeachie, 2005; Pintrich, 2004).
PROBLEM It is less clear how engagement impacts transfer or non- traditional students. Some have questioned the applicability of engagement to non- traditional or historically underrepresented student populations (Harper & Quaye, 2008). Transfer students may have work, life, and other family commitments.
PROBLEM Some have theorized that a students’ proclivity to become engaged on a college campus is predicated on their sense of belonging at the institution (Strange & Banning, 2001). Transfer students do not always feel comfortable at new institutions (Hurtado, & Carter, 1997; Kirk-Kuwaye & Kirk-Kuwaye, 2007) Transfer student may experience a lowered sense of well-being, academic enjoyment, and motivation (Zepke & Leach, 2010)
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between indicators of college student engagement and university attachment/belonging with transfer student academic success (GPA and Academic Motivation).
INSTITUTION SAMPLING Four (4) institutions were purposefully selected An additional twenty (20) institutions were randomly selected and invited to participate. Seven (7) agreed to participate.
PARTICIPANT SAMPLING Some institutions chose to identify a random sample while others chose to distribute our survey to all students. A total of 940 of those students invited to participate responded to our request. The final sample include 837 responses from participants identifying as transfer students.
STUDY SAMPLE Instit titut utio ion Instit titut utio ion Level el Cont ntrol ol Carn arneg egie ie Prof ofile ile Sample le Size Size Bemidji State University & Northwest 5,175 4-yr Public Masters Higher 145 Technical College Transfer-in Texas Christian University Doctoral/ Lower 8,853 4-yr Private 69 Research Transfer-in The University of Southern Mississippi Research (high Higher 15,300 4-yr Public 136 research) Transfer-in University of North Carolina at Chapel Research (very Low Transfer- 28,916 4-yr Public 91 Hill high research) in University of Tennessee Research (very Higher 29,934 4-yr Public 52 high research) Transfer-in Western Illinois University Higher 12,679 4-yr Public Masters 344 Transfer-in Tota tal 102,392 2,392 -- -- -- -- -- -- 837 837
MEASURES National Survey of Student Engagement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) University Attachment Scale (France, Finney, & Swerdzewski, 2010) Academic Motivation Scale (Pascarella, E. T., & colleagues, 2007)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL Environments • Gender • Psychological • Age • Behavioral • Institutional • Ethnicity • Cognitive Characteristics • Student • Peer Environment Background • Student Involvement Inputs Outcomes Astin’s (1993) Input-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) Model
CONCEPTUAL MODEL Environments • Gender • Academic Motivation • Race • GPA • SES/Parent Income • University Entering • • Pre-College GPA Attachment Persisting • Pre-College Degree • expectations • Student Engagement Graduating • • High School Courses (NSSE) Outcomes Inputs
CONCEPTUAL MODEL Environments Academic Outcomes Academic Motivation Engagement /University GPA Attachment
TRANSFER STUDENTS We defined a transfer student as any student who began college at another institution. Entering – Students with < 30 credit hours at the institution Persisting – Students with less than 90 credit hours at the institution Graduating – Students with > 90 credit hours or Seniors with > 45 credit hours at the institution.
TRANSFER STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Freshman hman Sophomor more Junior Senio ior Unclas lassifi sified Total Entering 17 71 210 47 14 359 Persisting 1 36 117 77 13 244 Graduating 0 0 4 185 7 196 Total 18 18 107 107 331 309 309 34 34 799 799
DEMOGRAPHICS 35% Male, 65% Female 1% Native American, 2% Bi-racial, 4% Asian American, 6% Latino(a), 7% African American, 80% Caucasian 34% did not work 34% worked more than 20 hours per week (8% > 40hrs) 28% were living with a domestic partner 7% were a current or active member of the armed services The average age of students was 26 years old (SD = 8.60) The average GPA was 3.24 (SD = .67)
2013-14 NSSE DATA COMPARISION NSSE NSSE Engag agemen ment NSSE Means ns Current nt Study Means ns Benchm chmarks arks Indica icator Freshman Senior Freshman Senior (2000-2012) 35.60 .60 (12.70) 38.90 .90 (13.00) 34.44 .44 (10.66) 40.67 .67 (12.43) Academic Challenge Reflective & Integrative Learning 39.4 .40 (14.20) 40.2 .20 (14.80) 40.0 .00 (12.73) 38.0 .04 (14.97) Learning Strategies 27.40 .40 (16.50) 30.10 .10 (17.40) 24.8 .81 (15.97) 30.09 .09 (15.86) Quantitative Reasoning 32.40 .40 (14.40) 32.20 .20 (14.40) 28.6 .61 (16.16) 35.04 .04 (14.09) Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning 40.90 .90 (16.00) 41.90 .90 (16.10) 38.89 .89 (13.88) 41.54 .54 (15.14) Discussions with Diverse Others Experiences with 20.50 .50 (14.70) 24.50 .50 (16.40) 13.6 .61 (11.22) 23.4 .41 (16.59) Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 40.10 .10 (13.30) 40.90 .90 (13.70) 44.00 .00 (16.69) 41.28 .28 (12.93) Effective Teaching Practices 41.40 .40 (12.50) 42.30 .30 (11.90) 37.47 .47 (13.38) 39.28 .28 (12.72) Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 37.40 .40 (13.80) 33.60 .60 (14.40) 36.50 .50 (16.81) 30.82 .82 (13.62) Supportive Campus Environment
MEAN AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES NSSE NSSE Engag agemen ment Indica icato tor Enterin ring Persist sting ing Gradua uating ing Benchm chmarks arks M M M α α α (2000-2012) .84 36.7 .71 .83 39.49 .49 .87 41.46 .46 Academic Challenge Reflective & Integrative Learning .80 37.3 .39 .76 37.4 .41 .79 39.3 .32 Learning Strategies .84 26.04 .04 .82 28.84 .84 .85 31.98 .98 Quantitative Reasoning .78 32.1 .17 .75 35.78 .78 .76 37.39 .39 Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning .90 40.00 .00 .89 41.27 .27 .87 43.40 .40 Discussions with Diverse Others Experiences with .82 .84 .85 18.06 .06 22.00 .00 26.22 .22 Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction .84 .89 .86 40.59 .59 39.54 .54 41.99 .99 Effective Teaching Practices .81 .80 .78 38.68 .68 38.5 .51 39.03 .03 Campus Environment Quality of Interactions .88 .87 .87 31.55 .55 32.34 .34 30.56 .56 Supportive Campus Environment .81 .80 .87 3.20 20 3.22 22 3.13 University Attachment Group Attachment .73 .75 .70 2.42 42 2.62 62 2.75 75 Member Attachment 360 245 197 Total N
CONCEPTUAL MODEL Environments Academic Outcomes Academic Motivation Engagement /University GPA Attachment
PREDICTING ACADEMIC MOTIVATION NSSE NSSE Engag agemen ment Indica icato tor Enterin ring Persist sting ing Gradua uating ing Benchm chmarks arks p p p β β β (2000-2012) 0.21 <.001 .057 .442 .032 .712 Academic Challenge Reflective & Integrative Learning 0.23 23 <.001 .213 .002 .346 46 .000 Learning Strategies 0.12 .029 .080 .243 .069 .383 Quantitative Reasoning -0.05 .343 .039 .579 -.022 .788 Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning -0.1 .13 .010 .061 .369 .004 .954 Discussions with Diverse Others Experiences with 0.11 .040 .105 .144 .041 .626 Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 0.06 .216 .196 96 .006 -.009 .903 Effective Teaching Practices 0.18 <.001 .193 93 .004 .106 .178 Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 0.10 .062 -.147 47 .045 .218 .008 Supportive Campus Environment University 0.15 .008 .034 .669 .080 .390 Attachment Group Attachment -0.1 .12 .042 -.077 .327 -.077 .429 Member Attachment 17.06 < .01 8.34 < .01 < .01 6.82 F Statistics .365 .296 .300 Model 𝑆 2
Recommend
More recommend
