A Look at Campus Life Activities

1. A Look at Campus Life Activities Measuring Student Engagement through Demographic and Other Characteristics

2. Importance of Student Engagement • Student involvement in Campus Life is an important element in student retention. Student Learning • Involvement in Campus Life has a wide range of elements including: • Residential life • Extra-curricular activities • clubs, wellness, etc. • Interaction with faculty • Interaction with staff • Campus employment Student Success Student Satisfaction Student Engagement Note: The survey presented questions about “Student Life.” Implications of the survey are much wider than the Office of “Student Life”, thus this presentation uses “Campus Life” as more reflective terminology.

3. Methodology • A web survey was sent to current students with 132 completions – a return rate of close to seven percent. Timing of the survey was probably the reason for a low response. A follow-up survey during October/November is currently planned. Ethnicity, marital status and residency of survey participants were reflective of the student population. A much higher representation of female students completed the survey compared to the general student population. Due to completion rates, survey results for the student survey should be considered suggestive rather than definitive in nature. • A web survey was also sent to 392 faculty and staff with 180 responses – a 46% response rate. There was equal gender representation, faculty/staff participation, and a wide range of unit/division representation.

4. Nearly three-fourths (72%) of students who participated in the survey identify themselves as “very” or “somewhat” involved in Campus Life activities. 4 out of 5 faculty and staff members who participated in the survey identify themselves as “very” or “somewhat” involved in Campus Life activities. Work is the primary barrier to engagement in Campus Life activities and is related to other family obligations (e.g., marital status, gender, and having children). Spouses and children bring additional responsibilities and time constraints that make it much more difficult for colleges to actively engage this group of students. The classroom may be the most effective place to reach out to these students. Scheduled time of activities is also a barrier for students. Students that live closer to campus list the scheduled time of activities as a higher barrier to participation than those that live farther from campus. More information is needed to understand times that students would prefer events (e.g., evenings, weekends). Most faculty/staff give high ratings to current Campus Life programming. Suggestions for programming changes fell into four main categories: Misalignment with our Student Body Lack of Things to Do in Okmulgee Need for Greater Campus Involvement Need for more Weekend Activities Traditional means of advertising are still the preferred method among survey participants with the online web calendar (88%) and the printed student life calendars (85%) having the highest percentages of students rating them “useful” or “very useful.” Additional advertising comments fell into three categories: No Change Electronic Advancement Earlier Notice of Events Several recommendations for improving Campus Life for students with disabilities were offered, including: Procuring a van with a wheelchair lift Better paving for wheel chair accessibility between buildings and just generally "smoother" streets/sidewalks etc. Creating a committee of students with disabilities to make recommendations Key Findings

5. Student Engagement • Nearly three-fourths (72%) of participants indicate they are either “somewhat” or “very” involved in Campus Life activities at OSU Institute of Technology. • Most students feel there are a variety of activities in which they can participate, and for the size of this institution, opportunities are greater here than at other places. Measuring Engagement in Campus Life

6. Faculty/Staff Engagement • More than four out of five (84%) faculty and staff indicate they are either “somewhat involved” or “very involved”. Measuring Engagement in Campus Life

7. Student Comments For this size school, you guys offer a lot of opportunities for students. I have attended other colleges and this campus offers a lot to take part in, between student life and residential life. I feel that the school offers many activities and there is something there for everyone. However, let’s look at the one-third who aren’t involved… Measuring Engagement in Campus Life

8. Several demographic characteristics emerge that are statistically significant among those who indicate they are “not involved” in Campus Life. Work is the largest barrier for students. Students who are either married, have children, or both are even more likely not to feel involved in Campus Life activities. Additionally, more women indicate a lack of involvement. Barriers to Engagement What does this mean for Campus Life planning? Let’s take a look at this step-by-step … Barriers to Student Engagement

9. Ethnicity and Residential Status and Engagement • Student Engagement level is not dependent on Ethnicity or Residential Status. What characteristics are correlated with lower Campus Life engagement levels? Barriers to Student Engagement

10. Work and Timing of Activities Student Engagement Barriers Work • The survey did not ask about work status as a demographic question. However, in the barrier section it becomes clear that work is the primary barrier to engagement in Campus Life activities, followed closely by the scheduled time of activities. Barriers to Student Engagement

11. Work and Timing of Activities Faculty/Staff Perception of Student Engagement Barriers Work • Faculty and staff also see work and family obligations as the largest barriers for student engagement. Transportation and other financial issues also received high ratings. Barriers to Student Engagement

12. Work and Timing of Activities Faculty/Staff Engagement Barriers Work • In line with student barriers, faculty and staff also see work and scheduled time of activities as the two largest barriers in their participation in Campus Life activities. Barriers to Faculty/Staff Engagement

13. 79% of students who have never been married indicate they are involved in Campus Life activities as compared to 56% of others. Marital Status and Engagement Spouse Barriers to Student Engagement

14. Children and Engagement • 78% of students without children indicate they are involved in Campus Life as compared to 62% of those with children. Children Barriers to Student Engagement

15. Gender and Engagement • 82% of males indicate they are involved in Campus Life activities as compared to 67% of females. Gender Barriers to Student Engagement

16. The one-third of students who indicate they aren’t involved in Campus Life have work obligations, spouses and children that make their time extremely limited. This presents the largest dilemma; when are the most conducive times to plan Campus Life activities to best reach this group? Scheduling of Events Work Children Spouse Scheduling ??? Barriers to Student Engagement

17. I live off campus and there are no activitiesthat involvebringing my children. Engagement in the Classroom • Spouses and children bring additional responsibilities and time constraints that make it much more difficult for colleges to actively engage this group of students. Recognizing this, Tinto (1975) suggests that the classroom may be the most effective place to reach out to these students. • For too many classrooms, the experience of learning is still one of isolation and passivity. It is for this reason that a growing number of universities in the United States have turned their attention to the classroom and asked themselves how they can restructure those places of learning and redirect their support activities to assist students in those places in order to promote student involvement and, in turn, student learning and retention. • Support for activities centered around the classroom, though outside the scope of this survey, would be suggested for future study. Student Comments Concerning Available Student Life Activities I am a single mom raising four children and don't have any way to stay on campus with them. I have a job working at the hospital. Barriers to Student Engagement

18. Child Care Utilization Daycare Use by Student Level of Involvement Faculty/Staff Perception of Child Care Needs • Approximately half of students with children indicate they would use child care during school sponsored activities. • Faculty/staff believe 70% of students would use child care. • Students currently not involved indicate to a higher degree that they would use child care. Note: p<.05 Barriers to Student Engagement

19. Activity Interest Level • Students were asked which in which activities they have participated or would be interested in participating. CarniFall (72.1%) and Springfest (69.9%) were overwhelmingly top choices. • Free movie nights, free college football tickets and the welcome back lunch were also favorites with at least sixty percent of students interested in attending. Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Students

20. Faculty/Staff Activity Ratings • Similar to student ratings, faculty and staff see on-campus social activities as the most important programming with 71% rating it as “very important.” • On-campus athletic activities and off-campus social events were of second-tier importance. Next, Faculty and Staff rate specific Campus Life activities, with the highest rating first … Evaluating Campus Life Programming

21. Welcome Back Lunch 87% rate the Welcome Back Lunch as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

22. Springfest 85% rate Springfest as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

23. CarniFall 84% rate CarniFall as “very” or “somewhat” effective with a much larger group rating “Don’t know”. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

24. Intramural Sports 82% rate Intramural Sports as “very” or “somewhat” effective with a much larger group rating “Don’t know”. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

25. Free Movie Nights 82% rate Free Movie Nights as “very” or “somewhat” effective”. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

26. Football Tickets 82% rate Free Football Tickets as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

27. Baseball Tickets 78% rate Free Baseball Tickets as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

28. Exercise Classes 77% rate Exercise Classes as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

29. Hockey Tickets 71% rate Free Hockey Tickets as “very” or “somewhat” effective. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

30. Festival Trips 70% rate festival trips as “very” or “somewhat” effective with a much larger group rating “Don’t know”. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

31. President’s Ice Cream Social 68% rate the President’s Ice Cream Social as “very” or “somewhat” effective with a much larger group rating “Don’t know.” Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

32. Body Mass Index Testing 38% rate Body Mass Index Testing as “very” or “somewhat” effective with a much larger group rating “Neutral”. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

33. Additional Faculty/Staff Comments Concerning Programming • Misaligned with our Student Body • The activities do not seem to be geared to the type of students that we have. • Activities and events are not interesting enough. • Students don't like many of the activities - too “wimpy”. • Lack of Community (Location of Campus) • I think it is great that the institution wants to provide more and better activities for the students. The students definitely need more activities since our community offers little to our student population. • Greater Campus Involvement • I believe the Student Life staff work hard to do what they can and need more assistance and buy-in from the rest of the on-campus family, especially those that directly affect their accomplishment of tasks. It is the responsibility of all campus staff to heighten the experience and some of us need to step it up. • Alternative Scheduling (e.g. weekend activities, activities tied into the classroom) • Need more weekend activities with more students having to stay on campus because of the price of gas. Simple cookouts, if there would be funding, would be nice. Maybe a watermelon feed this summer when melons are cheapest. Evaluating Campus Life Programming Evaluating Campus Life Programming: Faculty and Staff

34. Traditional Advertising Preferred • Traditional means of advertising are still the preferred method among the student survey participants, with the online web calendar (88%) and the printed Student Life calendars (85%) having the highest percentages of students rating them “useful” or “very useful.” (Note: Non-traditional means such as downloadable calendars (15%), Facebook (14%), and Myspace (10%) have a significant group of people who are uncertain if they would use the method.) Evaluating Advertising Channels for Campus Life Events

35. Faculty/Staff Concur with Students • Faculty/Staff survey shows similar results. • Faculty/Staff announcements are important with over 70% of both surveys indicating it as a “very important” advertising channel. • Students that are less engaged in campus activities rely even more on faculty/staff announcements. Evaluating Campus Life Programming

36. Additional Faculty/Staff Comments Concerning Advertising • No Change • I think you have been doing a great job at that already. • Continue to send via email to us so that we know what's going on. • It seems like you've got it all covered. • Electronic Advancement • Provide an iCal feed for the events in the system (would provide the student life calendar on lots of devices, most calendar programs, iPods, etc.) • Just-in-time (24 hour event lead time) instant messaging to student cell phones, auto-dial system, individual email. • Post reminders to outlook calendars. • Earlier Notice of Events • Have the semester calendars printed and distributed before first week of class. • Often information is not sent online until the day of the activity. Evaluating Campus Life Programming

37. Students with Disabilities • Get a least one van with a wheelchair lift in it!! We send a very clear message that they are not welcome to that activity because we do not have one available!!! • Better paving for wheelchair accessibility between buildings and just generally "smoother" streets/sidewalks, etc. • I feel you should have a committee of students with disabilities make recommendations. Evaluating Campus Life Programming

38. Questions?? Questions are guaranteed in life. Answers aren’t!

39. Group Activity

40. References • Hagedorn, Dr. Linda Serra. Community College Model of Student Life and Retention, University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. • Tinto, V. (1975). “Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.” Review of Educational Research Vol. 45(1), pp. 89-125. • Campus Life Survey, Faculty/Staff Survey, and resulting data can be found in the “Campus Life and Student Engagement” folder: https://okm.sharepoint.okstate.edu/ir/Shared Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx