1 / 48

SEM, Student Engagement and the Canadian Experience

Topics. SEM

rosine
Download Presentation

SEM, Student Engagement and the Canadian Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. SEM, Student Engagement and the Canadian Experience 1

    2. Topics SEM & Student Engagement: The Link Student Engagement Research: Lessons Learned Using Survey Data The Canadian Experience: Is it Different? Resources 2

    3. What is SEM? Strategic enrollment management (SEM) is a concept and process that enables the fulfillment of institutional mission and students educational goals. -Bontrager, 2004 3

    4. 4

    5. 5

    6. Student Engagement 6

    7. Institutional Reputation At first focused on inputs: Student characteristics (prior academic performance mostly); the more selective, the better Institutional resources (quality of faculty, campus infrastructure, books in the library) This formed the basis for rankings (e.g., Macleans, US News & World Report) 7

    8. 8 But The nature and quality of first year students experiences in the classroom, with faculty, and with peers are better predictors of desired educational outcomes associated with college attendance than precollege characteristics. -Gerken & Volkwien, 2000

    9. The Rest of the Story i.e., what happens during the students campus experience is as, or more, critical than student inputs Institutions began to survey students on their satisfaction with programs & services (e.g., CUSC, Noel Levitzs SSI) & external bodies followed (provincial governments, Macleans, Globe & Mail) 9

    10. What is Student Engagement? Research of past 20 years has led to concept of student engagement (coined by Kuh) as a way of assessing educational outcomes & quality of teaching & learning Embraces 3 key student success processes Active involvement: time & energy invested in learning experience inside and outside classroom Social integration: interaction, collaboration & interpersonal relationships between students & peers, faculty, staff & administrators Personal reflection: think deeply on learning experiences 10

    11. Key Research Findings How an institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities and support services leads to positive experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning and graduation (Kuh, 2001; Pascarella/Terenzini, 2005) 11

    12. Key Research Findings (Cont.) Student engagement varies more within any given school or institutional type than between schools or institutional types (Pascarella/Terenzini, 2005) Though smaller schools generally engage students more effectively, colleges and universities of similar size can vary widely (NSSE, 2005) Student engagement is unrelated to selectivity (Kuh/Pascarella, 2004; NSSE, 2003) Some non-residential schools & community colleges have exemplary student engagement practices 12

    13. Key Research Findings (Cont.) Some students such as first generation students, males, transfer students and those who live off-campus are generally less engaged than others Some single mission schools confer engagement advantages to their students (Kinzie et al, 2007) 13

    14. And Key for Our Discussion The single best predictor of student satisfaction with college is the degree to which students perceive the college environment to be supportive of their academic and social needs (Astin, 1993; Pascarella/Terenzini, 2005) 14

    15. Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice 15

    16. SEM & Student Engagement Goals Inter-twine Students who are: better connected increasingly involved on campus deeply invested in learning & growth are more likely to persist & graduate 16

    17. Using NSSE (& Other) Data Kuh notes that enough research has been done we know what we need to do The problem is in large-scale execution Many campuses beginning to use data from NSSE, CUSC & other surveys to plan & improve students experiences Collaborate & communicate results Use multiple sources for triangulation Use data to learn more about students Use data for assessment Enhance the first-year experience 17

    18. Develop a Shared Vision Involve faculty, student affairs educators, institutional researchers as well as SEM practitioners IR responsible for administration of data Can help make sense of data & identify important themes Organize retreats (e.g., uWindsor) or debriefings (institution-wide or faculty-based) to discuss best course of action 18

    19. Use Multiple Data Sources Confirm findings are consistent across multiple surveys & assessment methods Link results from NSSE, CUSC to other student data such as GPA, residential status, etc. Helps determine if engagement varies across groups Helps identify gaps in student support structures 19

    20. Learn More About Students Gain a broad perspective on undergraduate population Monitor engagement of specific groups of students Entire subpopulations of students may be retention risks (transfer students, athletes, Aboriginal students) Learn about needs of individual students Who is vulnerable to departure? Who is not making transition to PSE well? 20

    21. Set & Then Assess Goals Identify strengths & weaknesses Form objectives (e.g., global citizenship, diversity awareness, living-learning communities, FYE programs) Assess progress towards goals 21

    22. Enhance First-Year Experience First-year critical for persistence Examine curriculum, academic expectations, residence life, orientation Enhance faculty contact 22

    23. Student Engagement Practices Must: Move away from an a???? la carte approach to meeting student needs Be part of an intentional institution-wide strategy Include & engage faculty Assess & scrutinize effectiveness 23

    24. Connecting It Back to SEM What is the SEM practitioners role in student engagement activities? Can NSSE & other surveys be used to set SEM goals? Where & how should one begin? 24

    25. CANADIAN STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 25

    26. Some Key Questions Is the level of student engagement different in Canada vs. the U.S.? Is there a different approach to enhancing student engagement in Canada? If so, why? 26

    27. Differences in NSSE Results FACT: Canadian universities do not generally score as high on NSSE as their U.S. peers 27

    28. A Comparative Look at Student Engagement in the US & Canada (Kandiko, 2009) Differ in term of the frequency with which they engage in active and collaborative learning and student-faculty interaction. Why? The Canadian classroom experience involves less active participation by students and less individual contact with faculty members The large size of most Canadian universities and higher student-faculty ratios makes collaborative learning experiences and faculty contact more challenging 28

    29. A Comparative Look (Cont.) Students in Canada participate less in three of the best practices in undergraduate education: active learning, peer collaboration, and student-faculty interaction. Three possible explanations: As faculty spend more time doing research, there is less time available for students Full-time non-tenure and part-time faculty are often overloaded with classes and unable to devote time and effort towards fully engaging students increasing student-faculty ratios leave fewer faculty assigned to larger cohorts of students. 29

    30. A Comparative Look (Cont.) Student engagement in Canada and the U.S. was found to differ by academic major. Students in professional fields, such as finance, management and pre-law had similar responses in both countries. The narrowest gaps occurred in the business and professional fields. In contrast, there was a marked difference between Canadian and U.S. students in arts and humanities, life sciences and social sciences. Canadian students in those majors reported considerably less engagement overall compared to their U.S. peers. 30

    31. Intra- and Inter-Institutional Differences There are significant differences in NSSE results between institutions & within institutions 31

    32. Are Canadian Institutions Really All That Different? Institutional character (size, location, student-faculty ratios, research focus) Academic practices (e.g., TAs, admission policies/practices) Student attitudinal, behavioural & academic characteristics 32

    33. Or Is It Just that Canada & the US Are Different? Perhaps. Could it be that American models for student engagement and student learning are not as helpful in understanding the Canadian student experience? 33

    34. A Few Student Engagement Stand-Outs in Canada 34

    35. 35

    36. Overview Purpose: To increase high achieving student enrollment in selected low enrollment programs To enhance quality of teaching assistants An annual base renewable scholarship A paid (200 hours per year) academic appointment in their home department Strong relationships with faculty members 36

    37. 37

    38. 38

    39. Success@Seneca 39

    40. 40

    41. Lethbridge College: First Nations, Mtis and Inuit Transition Program 41

    42. 42

    43. 43

    44. 44

    45. 45

    46. 46

    47. Discussion, Comments & Questions 47

    48. 48

More Related