The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student …nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/presentations/2015/NSSE ACUHO-I...The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student Engagement An ACUHO-I

The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student Engagement

An ACUHO-I and NSSE Collaboration

Bob Gonyea, Polly Graham, & Sarah Fernandez

Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University School of Education

Objectives

u  To refresh our knowledge of the effects of on-campus living on student learning and development

u  To analyze these findings among different student subpopulations and institutional types

u  To encourage housing professionals to use student engagement data on their campuses

u  To establish a research agenda with ACUHO-I using student engagement data

Outline

1.  Brief introduction to NSSE

2.  Purpose of our study

3.  Findings

4.  Conclusions

5.  Discussion/Next steps

Who is in the Audience?

q  Unfamiliar with NSSE?

q  Campus has participated in NSSE, but you haven’t seen or heard much about it?

q  Campus participated, and results have been shared with you?

q  You are one of the NSSE experts on your campus?

What do we know?

Positive effects of living on campus

• Belonging • Engagement • Openness to

diversity

(Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2010; Blimling, 1993; Pike, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Long, 2014)

“In our 1991 synthesis, we concluded that living on campus (versus living off campus or commuting) was the single most consistent within-college determinate of the impact of college”

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 603)

What do we know?

The effects of living on campus can vary by different student subpopulations and across different institutional types. (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Turley & Wodtke, 2010; Schudde, 2011)

For example:

• Black students who live on campus and students living on campus at liberal arts institutions have significantly higher GPAs than their counterparts who live off campus with family.

NSSE Content

• ~ 90 questions

• 10 Engagement Indicators (in 4 themes)

• 6 High-Impact Practices

• Academic Challenge Items

• Perceived Gains

• Demographics

Themes Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge

Higher-‐Order Learning Reflec5ve & Integra5ve Learning Learning Strategies Quan5ta5ve Reasoning

Learning with Peers Collabora5ve Learning Discussions with Diverse Others

Experiences with Faculty Student-‐Faculty Interac5on Effec5ve Teaching Prac5ces

Campus Environment Quality of Interac5ons Suppor5ve Environment

Engagement Indicators

High-Impact Practices

• Learning Communities

• Service-Learning

• Research with Faculty

• Study Abroad

•  Internships/ Field Experiences

• Senior Culminating Experiences

Topical Modules

• Academic Advising

• Experiences with Writing

• Civic Engagement

• Development of Transferable Skills

• Experiences with Diverse Perspectives

• Learning with Technology

• Experiences with Information Literacy

• Global Awareness

NSSE 2013-2014 Sample

• Number of institutions = 973

• First-year students = 241,090; Seniors = 333,064

Carnegie Classifica5on Student %

Research Univ (very high research ac0vity) 15 Research Univ (high research ac0vity) 15 Doctoral/Research Univ 7 Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) 31 Master's Colleges and Univ (medium prog) 9 Master's Colleges and Univ (smaller prog) 4 Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Arts & Sciences 9 Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Diverse Fields 8 Other 3

NSSE 2013-2014 Sample

First-‐Year Students % On Campus

% WITHIN Walking Distance

% FARTHER THAN walking distance

Part-‐0me 1 4 11

Not Tradi0onal Age (over 20 years)

1% 14% 26%

Seniors % On Campus


% FARTHER THAN walking distance

Part-‐0me 4 11 24

Not Tradi0onal Age (over 23 years)

6% 15% 55%

Study Sample

… after removing part-time and nontraditional students:

Living On Campus

WITHIN Walking Distance

FARTHER THAN walking

distance

First-‐year (full-‐0me & tradi0onal age) 118,724 10,187 25,553 Senior (full-‐0me & tradi0onal age) 41,386 51,991 55,745

Student Characteris5cs First-‐Year Students

% Living On

Campus


% FARTHER THAN walking

distance

Male 33 34 32

American Indian or Alaska Na0ve 1 1 1

Asian 4 6 8

Black or African American 8 9 6

Hispanic or La0no 8 12 22

Na0ve Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

White 69 57 52

Other 0 0 0

Foreign or Nonresident 3 8 2

Two or more races/ethnici0es 3 4 4

First-‐genera0on 34 42 55

Transfer 4 7 6

Student Characteris5cs Seniors

% Living On

Campus



distance

Male 36 36 32

American Indian or Alaska Na0ve 0 0 1 Asian 4 4 5

Black or African American 8 4 6

Hispanic or La0no 6 6 11 Na0ve Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 White 71 76 68 Other 0 0 0

Foreign or Nonresident 3 4 2

Two or more races/ethnici0es 2 2 2

First-‐genera0on 32 30 45

Transfer 15 20 36

Ins5tu5onal Types First-‐Year Students

% Living On Campus


% FARTHER THAN

walking distance

Research Univ (very high research ac0vity) 17 19 11

Research Univ (high research ac0vity) 13 15 15

Doctoral/Research Univ 6 8 8

Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) 26 27 38

Master's Colleges and Univ (medium prog) 9 8 9

Master's Colleges and Univ (smaller prog) 4 3 4

Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Arts & Sciences 14 6 3

Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Diverse Fields 8 10 9

Other 2 3 4

Ins5tu5onal Types Seniors

% Living On Campus


% FARTHER THAN

walking distance

Research Univ (very high research ac0vity) 12 22 17

Research Univ (high research ac0vity) 10 20 18

Doctoral/Research Univ 5 6 7

Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) 24 25 35

Master's Colleges and Univ (medium prog) 9 8 8

Master's Colleges and Univ (smaller prog) 5 3 3

Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Arts & Sciences 25 9 4

Baccalaureate Colleges -‐ Diverse Fields 11 5 6

Other 2 2 2

Living Arrangements

Which of the following best describes where you are living while attending college?

q Dormitory or other campus housing (not fraternity or sorority house)

q  Fraternity or sorority house

q Residence (house, apartment, etc.) within walking distance to the institution

q Residence (house, apartment, etc.) farther than walking distance to the institution

q None of the above

Living Arrangements

Which of the following best describes where you are living while attending college?

q ON CAMPUS

q WITHIN walking distance

q  FARTHER THAN walking distance

Research Question

How do students’ living arrangements influence their engagement in effective educational practices?

Focus of the Study

• Students’ Time Use

• Quality of Interaction

• Supportive Environment

• Diverse Interactions

• Student-Faculty Interaction

• Focus on first-year findings

• Looking specifically at: ü Sex ü Race ü Institution Type

Students’ Time Use

Literature Astin’s (1984) Involvement Theory

Student learning & personal development is directly proportional to the quality & QUANTITY of student involvement in that program.


NSSE Item Hours per week:

ü  Preparing for class ü  Participating in

co-curricular activities

ü Doing community service

ü Relaxing and socializing


Hours per Week on Selected Ac5vi5es: First-‐year Preparing for class

Co-‐curricular ac0vi0es

Relaxing & socializing

Community service

Quality of Interactions

Literature Interactions with peers, faculty, and campus administrators is associated with positive outcomes for students.

Student-faculty interactions promote:

•  Academic achievement •  Personal growth &

development •  Persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Halawah, 2006; Goldstein, 1999)

“It is clear that peers are an important factor in student adjustment to college in that peer interaction has both direct and indirect effects on how much students learn”

(Hu & Kuh, 2003)


NSSE Item Indicate the quality of your interactions with the following people at your institution.

(1=Poor to 7=Excellent) ü  Students ü  Academic advisors ü  Faculty ü  Student services staff (career services, student

activities, housing, etc.) ü  Other administrative staff and offices (registrar,

financial aid, etc.)


Findings In general, living on campus benefits…

u  FY students – Interactions with other students

u  Seniors – Interactions with advisors and faculty


With Other Students More first-year students living on campus reported high-quality interactions* with other students.

* Percentage rating at least 6 on a 7-point scale

0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus

WITHIN walking distance

FARTHER THAN walking

distance

Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Other Students as High*


With Advisors More senior students and slightly more first-year students living on campus reported high-quality interactions* with advisors.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus


FARTHER THAN Walking Distance

Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Advisors as High*

First-‐year Senior



With Other Students—Race/Ethnicity Generally, African American students benefited less from living on campus than their White counterparts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus



Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Other Students as High*

Black/AA White



With Faculty— Race/Ethnicity Generally, African American students benefited less from living on campus than their White counterparts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus



Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Faculty as High*

Black/AA White



With Staff— Race/Ethnicity Generally, African American students benefited less from living on campus than their White counterparts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus



Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Staff as High*

Black/AA White


Supportive Environment

Literature

A supportive campus environment plays an important role in academic success and persistence.

(Tinto, 2005; Anderson & Carta-Falsa, 2002; Tinto, 1987)

“To be serious about student success, institutions would recognize that the roots of attrition lie not only in their students and the situations they face, but also in the very character of the educational settings, now assumed to be natural to higher education, in which they ask students to learn” (Tinto, 2005, p. 1).


NSSE Items How much does your institution emphasize the following?

Very much, Quite a bit, Some, Very little ü  Providing support to help students succeed academically ü  Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) ü  Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds (social,

racial/ethnic, religious, etc.) ü  Providing opportunities to be involved socially ü  Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care,

counseling, etc.) ü  Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) ü  Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletics events,

etc.) ü  Attending events that address important social, economic, or political

issues


Findings In general, when compared to students living FARTHER THAN walking distance, living ON CAMPUS is associated with FY perceptions of the institution’s emphasis on:

u  Proving opportunities to be involved socially

u  Providing support for their overall well-being

u  Attending campus activities and events


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

RU/VH RU/H DRU MA-‐L MA-‐M MA-‐S Bac/A&S Bac/Div

Ins5tu5onal Emphasis on FY Students AXending Campus Events by Ins5tu5on Type

ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance

* Percentage responding “Quite a bit” or “Very much”


However, there were generally no benefits for students living on campus with regards to the institutional emphasis on contact among diverse others.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking Distance


Ins5tu5onal Emphasis on Contact among FY Students of Different Backgrounds

Female Male


Diversity

Literature Hu & Kuh (2003) state that providing intentional opportunities among students with diverse backgrounds will have a positive impact on students across student and institutional characteristics.

•  The effect of the benefits may be even stronger in situations where students are in close proximity of each other.

Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) argue that living on campus helps students be more open to diversity.

Diverse Interactions

NSSE Items On the NSSE Core Survey, students were asked:

•  During the current school year, about how often have you had discussions with people from the following groups?

ü  People of a race or ethnicity other than your own ü  People from an economic background other than your own ü  People with religious beliefs other than your own ü  People with political views other than your own

On the Experiences with Diverse Perspectives Module, students were asked:

•  During the current school year: ü  To what extent events or activities offered at your institution emphasize perspectives on

societal differences ü  About how often have you attended events or activities that encouraged you to examine your

understanding of various societal differences ü  About how often have you had discussions about various societal differences

Discussions with Diverse Others

Findings First-year Asian and Hispanic or Latino students living on campus had discussions with diverse others more often.

Asian % Living

On Campus


% FARTHER THAN

walking distance

Race/Ethnicity 83 76 79 Econ. Background 77 70 70 Religious Beliefs 74 68 71 Poli0cal Views 66 60 61

* Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”


Findings First-year Asian and Hispanic or Latino students living on campus had discussions with diverse others more often.

Hispanic or La5no Students

% Living On

Campus


% FARTHER THAN

walking distance

Race/Ethnicity 82 74 73 Econ. Background 79 73 70 Religious Beliefs 73 67 67 Poli0cal Views 70 65 64



Findings Living on campus seems to benefit first-year women more than first-year men on discussions with those from different religious beliefs and political views. 0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus



Diverse Discussions: First-‐Year Women

Religious beliefs Poli0cal views



Findings Living on campus seems to benefit first-year women more than first-year men on discussions with those from different religious beliefs and political views. 0

20

40

60

80

100

Living On Campus



Diverse Discussions: First-‐Year Men

Religious beliefs Poli0cal views


Diverse Interactions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

RU/VH RU/H DRU MA-‐L MA-‐M MA-‐S Bac/A&S Bac/Div

Ins5tu5onal Ac5vi5es Emphasized* FY Perspec5ves on Social Differences by Ins5tu5on Type

ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance


Student-Faculty Interaction

Literature Multiple researchers have found that students living on campus have more formal and informal interactions with faculty than their off campus peers (Astin 1984; Chickering, 1971, 1974; Pascarella, 1984; Pascarella, 1985, Welty, 1976).

“Informal interaction of college students and faculty affects students’ academic achievement, satisfaction with college, and intellectual and personal development”

(Halawah, 2006, p 670).


NSSE Items During the current school year, about how often have you done the following: ü  Worked with a faculty

member on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)?


On-campus first-year students work with faculty on activities outside of class more than those living farther than walking distance.

% Living On Campus



distance

American Indian or Alaska Na0ve 22 32 17 Asian 20 21 16 Black or African American 25 30 20 Hispanic or La0no 22 25 16

Na0ve Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 19 38 14 White 18 20 13


Conclusions

1. On most engagement measures, there were few differences between students living on campus and those within walking distance.

2. Where differences existed, they were generally with those farther than walking distance.

3. Drilling down into different student and institutional characteristics can reveal interesting findings worthy of attention.

4. More research is needed.

Discussion

• Considering student engagement, is there something distinctive about living on-campus?

• How much does residential programming influence student engagement?

• Why might certain populations benefit more from living on campus than others?

• Why do students living on campus spend less time doing community service?

References

•  Anderson, L. E. & J. C. Carta-Falsa. 2002. Factors that make faculty and student relationships effective. College Teaching 50(4): 134–38.

•  Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

•  Blimling, G.S. (1993). The influence of college residence halls on students. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 248–307). New York: Agathon.

•  Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuters versus residents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. •  Delucchi, M. (1983). Academic performance in a college town. Education, 114(1), 96-101.

•  Gardner, J.W. (1989). Building community. Kettering Review, 7, 73-81. •  Goldstein, L. S. 1999. The relational zone: The role of caring relationships on the construction of mind.

American Educational Research Journal 36(3): 647–73.

•  Halawah, I. (2006). The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships on intellectual and personal development. College Student Journal.

•  Hu, S. & Kuh, G.D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-334.

•  Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. John Wiley & Sons.

•  Long, L. D. (2014). Does it matter where college students live? Differences in satisfaction and outcomes as a function of students’ living arrangement and gender. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 40(2), 66-85.

References

•  Pascarella, E.T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-62). New York: Agathon.

•  Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. •  Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How Collect Affects Students, Volume 2, A Third Decade of

Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

•  Pike, G. R. (2002). The Differential Effects of On-and Off-Campus Living Arrangements on Students' Openness to Diversity*. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 39(4), 368-384.

•  Schudde, L. T. (2011). The causal effect of campus residency on college student retention. The Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 581-610.

•  Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press, 5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.

•  Tinto, V. (2005, January). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. In Ninth Annual Intersession Academic Affairs Forum, California State University, Fullerton.

•  Turley, R. N. L., & Wodtke, G. (2010). College residence and academic performance: who benefits from living on campus?. Urban Education, 45(4), 506-532.

•  Welty, J.D. (1976). Resident and commuter students: Is it only the living situation? Journal of College Personnel.

Documents

The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student …nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/presentations/2015/NSSE ACUHO-I...The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student Engagement An ACUHO-I