Dissertation Findings The Effect of Student Engagement on Student Success at a Binational Hispanic Serving Institution Dissertation Findings Presented at TACUSPA By Charles E. Gibbens October 6, 2009

Purpose of Study Research Questions Determine the correlation between student engagement and student success at UTEP. Research Questions Do the NSSE identified educationally purposeful activities predict student success for UTEP students? Which of the educationally purposeful activities have a greater impact on student success at UTEP? What is the impact of various socio-economic and background factors as identified by the NSSE survey on student success at UTEP? What are the institutional factors as identified by the NSSE survey that influence student success at UTEP? Is there a difference between the freshman students that persist to the next fall semester and those that do not in how they answered the educationally purposeful activities section of the NSSE survey? Can the factors from the NSSE survey educationally purposeful activities section be arrayed in a theoretically compelling and empirically identifiable means?

National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) Since 2000 Over 1300 participating institutions Freshman and senior students at each institution Self reported data – halo effect – consistent across institutions Survey Validity Clearly worded – high face content and validity Survey Reliability Correlation of concordance Matched sample t-tests Test-retest analysis

NSSE Educationally Purposeful Activities Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Made a class presentation Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in Come to class without completing readings or assignments Worked with other students on projects during class Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) Participated in a community-based project (e.g., service learning) as part of a regular course Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment Used email to communicate with an instructor Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.) Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.) Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

Methodology Correlation Matrix – Determine the degree of relationship between two variables. Factor Analysis – Determine which variables tend to clump together. Path Analysis – Predict cause and effect between variables.

Correlation Matrix No variables had a majority of values over 0.05. No values were greater than 0.09. No potential problems with singularity. Variables were determined to correlate fairly well indicating that the survey questions were appropriately related.

Factor Analysis Method of dimension reduction N=540 Eigenvalues greater than 1 identified for factor loading. Identified top 4 values to account for more than 50% of the overall variance. Scree plot used to identify area of inflexion.

Factor Analysis 4 Identified Factor Components Collaborative Academic Engagement In-depth Diverse Communications Academic Work Ethic Technological Communication

Background Characteristics Factor Analysis Components Path Analysis Background Characteristics Factor Analysis Components Output Variables First Generation (Compared to Non First Generation) Collaborative Academic Engagement -0.247 GPA Non First Generation (Compared to First Generation) +0.247 Female (Compared to Male) -0.257 In-Depth Diverse Communications +0.256 +0.257 Male (Compared to Female) +0.114 Low Risk (Compared to Medium Risk) Academic Work Ethic +0.223 Retention +0.14 Medium Risk (Compared to Low Risk) -0.223 +0.221 -0.375 Technological Communication Low Risk (Compared to High Risk) +0.306 +0.375 -0.306 High Risk (Compared to Low Risk)

Findings First generation students engage in in-depth communications at lower rates than non first generation students.

Findings Female students participate in collaborative academic engagement at lower levels than their male counterparts.

Findings UTEP students identified as low risk engaged in technological communication at higher rates than medium risk students.

Findings UTEP students identified as high risk engaged in academic work ethic at higher rates than low risk students.

Findings Collaborative academic engagement had no correlation with either output variable.

Future Research and Professional Practice Increase demographic information gathered by NSSE Increase Validation efforts Examine Hispanic student engagement Include validation and engagement concepts in departmental vision and mission statements