1. Student Engagement: Comparing Community College Students in the US and Canada Maureen Pettitt, Ph.D. Skagit Valley College, WA Karen Grigoleit Douglas College, BC

2. Presentation Topics Overview of Survey Administration Institutional “Sketches” CCSSE Results: Similarities & Differences Student Characteristics Student Characteristics Use of Services Use of Services Student Engagement/Effort Student Engagement/Effort College Contribution to Learning & Development College Contribution to Learning & Development Other Interesting Stuff Other Interesting Stuff

3. How are we doing??

4. CCSSE Overview Emphasis on student engagement and student learning (e.g., Astin, Tinto, Pace) Adapted from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Funding from Lumina Foundation for Education and Pew Charitable Trusts Administered by Community College Leadership Program at UTA Pilot test in 2001; field test in 2002

5. 2003 Survey Administration Nationally, 93 colleges participated Northwest Consortium Douglas College in BC and five WA community colleges 3,480 usable surveys for Consortium Douglas College N=789 Skagit Valley College N=782

6. 

7. Skagit Valley College Established 1926 Predominantly rural, tri-county district covering 2,118 square miles Mount Vernon & Whidbey Island Campuses; Centers in So Whidbey & San Juan Island Closest metro areas ~ 60 miles (Seattle & Vancouver, BC) Spring 2003 enrollment = 6,453 Academic/transfer & 30 prof/tech programs

8. Douglas College Established 1970 Two campuses—New Westminster and Coquitlam—close enough so that students can commute between the two Suburban location (500,000 area pop) Large immigrant population in last 10-20 years Winter 2003 enrollment = 9,847 Majority academic transfer & mix of career/technical programs

9. “Above Benchmark” Performance Both Douglas College and Skagit Valley College scored above the national benchmarks in the following areas: Active & Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge SVC also scored above the benchmark in Student-Faculty Interaction

10. Similarities & Differences: Student Characteristics Student Characteristics

11. Reason for Attending Note: Students could indicate “primary reason” in more than one category

12. First Generation Definition: student has no college experience, and neither parent has earned a degree beyond a high school diploma National = 32% Northwest Consortium = 25% Douglas = 26% SVC = 27%

13. Non-Native English Speakers

14. Gender

15. Age

16. Similarities & Differences Use of Student Support Services Use of Student Support Services

17. Similarities in Use of Services

18. Differences in Use of Services

19. Similarities & Differences Student Engagement/ Effort— Student Engagement/ Effort— Active & Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interaction Student-Student Interaction

20. Active & Collaborative Learning The percentage of SVC students responding “often” or “very often” was significantly higher for the following items: Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions – 68% vs. 49% Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in – 65% vs. 52% Worked with other students on projects during class – 66% vs. 55% Differences may be due to SVC’s required learning communities and English writing links

21. Student-Faculty Interaction SVC students indicated better relationships with faculty and staff, and were more likely than Douglas students to: Discuss grades or assignment with an instructor Talk about career plans with an instructor or advisor Get feedback from an instructor about his/her performance

22. Student-Student Interaction There were no differences between the colleges on the quality of relationships with other students However, Douglas respondents were more likely to have “Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity” than SVC respondents: 55% vs. 47% Probably due to the higher ethnic mix at Douglas

23. Similarities & Differences College Contribution to Student Development College Contribution to Student Development

24. Knowledge, Skills & Personal Development No significant differences in these areas: acquiring a broad general education acquiring job or work-related skills critical thinking using computing & information technology working effectively with others learning effectively on one’s own

25. Math & Numerical Skills Students who have taken a remedial math course reported higher numerical skills development SVC = 76%, Douglas = 69% Overall, SVC students reported greater gains in ability to solve numerical problems 56% vs. 33% Possibly due to program mix or gender

26. Numerical Problem Solving

27. Other Interesting Findings Issues Likely to Cause Withdrawal Issues Likely to Cause Withdrawal Distribution of Grade Point Average (GPA) Distribution of Grade Point Average (GPA)

28. Potential Reasons for Withdrawal

29. GPA – Transfer Primary Reason for Attending: Transfer

30. GPA – Job Skill Obtainment Primary Reason for Attending: Job-Related Skills

31. Overall Satisfaction Items “Would you recommend this college to a friend or family member?” National  95% said “Yes” they would SVC  94% Douglas  93% “How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this college?” National  86% rated their experience “Excellent” or “Good” SVC  84% Douglas  80%

32. Just the tip of the iceberg! The data gives us some insight into student perceptions and behaviors…How can the college use this data to improve programs and services?

33. Thanks for your attention …