Docstoc

Highlights from A National Survey on Enhancing Undergraduate

Document Sample
Highlights from A National Survey on Enhancing Undergraduate Powered By Docstoc
					Highlights from A National Survey
     on Enhancing Undergraduate
   Student Success and Retention
         Looking Beyond the First Year
Survey Contents
 Summer Bridge Programs
 Pre-Term Orientation
 Academic/Transition Seminars
 Learning Communities
 Early Warning/Academic Alert Systems
 Service Learning
 Undergraduate Research
Survey respondents
 527 four-year institutions (from an overall
  population of 1,373)

 Response rate 38.4%

 The largest percentage of respondents was in
  the 1,001 – 5,000 student category.
Academic/Transition Seminars
Any Seminar by Public/Private Control
               Public     Private       All
Yes              89.5%      85.5%      87.1%
No                9.4%      13.4%      11.8%
Don’t Know        1.2%       1.1%        1.2%

             Seminars at All Levels by Control
                                    Public      Private   All
             First-Year              95.4%        97.3%   96.5%
             Transfer                21.7%        27.9%   25.3%
             Sophomore               11.8%        14.4%   13.3%
             Junior                  14.1%        16.7%   15.6%
             Senior                  91.3%        93.5%   92.6%
Percentage of Students
Participating
Mean Percentage of Students Participating in Seminars by Enrollment
             1,000 or 1,001 –   5,001 –   10,001 –   20,001 or    All
              under    5,000    10,000     20,000      over
First-Year     96.3%    87.4%     67.0%      67.0%      45.3%    79.7%
Transfer       82.5%    62.7%     43.3%      39.4%        7.7%   55.9%
Soph.          73.2%    47.0%     20.0%      19.9%        8.0%   37.3%
Junior         82.0%    51.7%     29.5%      38.5%      45.0%    49.1%
Senior         79.9%    80.0%     63.6%      56.9%      62.0%    73.4%



The highest rates of student participation in all seminars
are in institutions with no more than 5,000 students.
Sophomore Seminars: Examples
 Part of a four-course sequence that spans the
  undergraduate years.
 ◦ Focus on self and society, purpose, and critical thinking
 Major-based courses; information literacy in the
  major
 Coverage of specific general education
  competencies (e.g., multiculturalism)
 Residential – part of “sophomore residential
  colleges”
 Courses for students on probation or at risk of
  dropping out
 Career-oriented courses
 Honors courses
Junior Seminars: Examples
 Courses taught through “disciplinary lens” of
  professor but focused on general topics
 Knowledge of research methodology in major
 Extensive writing course to meet graduation
  requirements
 “Juniors abroad”
 Experiential learning requirement with linked
  seminars
 Capstone for the general education core
 Honors
 Elective on civic engagement
 Preparation for graduate/professional school in
  STEM departments
Senior Seminars
 Demonstration of major related competencies
  (90%)
 Creation/presentation of original research or
  artistic expression (78%)
 Career readiness (57%)
 Integration of general education and major
  (45%)
 Better understanding of the liberal arts (27%)
 Other – “integration of faith and learning,”
  “preparation for senior project”
Learning Communities
Any Learning Community By Institutional
Control
                Public       Private              All
Yes               73.8%            45.1%          56.5%
No                25.0%            54.6%          42.8%
Don’t Know         1.2%             0.4%           0.7%
Learning Communities at All Levels by Enrollment
             1,000 or    1,001 –     5,001 –       10,001 –      20,001    All
              under       5,000      10,000         20,000       or over
First-year     71.4%       90.4%       90.9%            94.9%     95.8%    90.6%
Transfer         0.0%       3.5%           4.5%           5.1%    12.5%     4.7%
Soph.          21.4%       19.3%       15.9%            10.5%     34.8%    18.9%
Junior         14.3%        7.1%           9.1%           5.1%     8.7%     7.7%
Senior           7.1%       7.1%           9.1%           5.1%     9.1%     7.4%
Learning Community Characteristics

 First-Year Learning Communities
 ◦ Students co-enrolled in two or more courses;
   faculty work closely (60%)
 ◦ One of the courses is a first-year seminar (58%)
 ◦ Linkage to residence life (56%)
 ◦ Courses linked by common intellectual theme (52%)
 Sophomore Learning Communities (n = 44)
 ◦ Linkage to residence life (51%)
 ◦ Courses linked by common intellectual theme (49%)
 ◦ Students co-enrolled; faculty work closely together
   (44%)
 ◦ One of the courses is a sophomore seminar (12%)
Junior and Senior Learning
Communities (13 identified at each
level)
 Junior
 ◦ Honors learning community
 ◦ Single community: entrepreneurship
 ◦ One of the integrated learning communities: “What does
   it mean to be human?” “What is truth?” What is the
   common good?”
 ◦ Residential communities
 Senior
 ◦ “GreenBelt Learning Community: Living learning
   community themed on sustainability
 ◦ Integration of liberal arts, major, and Christian
   perspective
 ◦ Honors learning community
Early Warning For Sophomores,
Juniors, and Seniors
Early Warning/Academic Alert Systems
          1,000 or   1,001 –    5,001 –    10,001 –   20,001    All
           under      5,000     10,000      20,000    or over
                               Sophomores
All         74.1%      64.4%       45.8%     37.8%      22.7%   57.5%
Some        16.7%      22.6%       28.8%     42.2%      54.5%   26.8%
                                 Juniors
All         73.6%      59.6%       40.7%     33.3%      17.4%   53.1%
Some        15.1%      22.1%       25.4%     33.3%      39.1%   24.0%
                                 Seniors
All         75.5%      60.1%       41.4%     34.1%      13.6%   53.8%
Some        15.1%      20.7%       22.4%     29.5%      40.9%   22.3%

               Students most likely to be monitored: academic probation,
                  athletes, EOP students, scholarship students
Service Learning
Service Learning by Institutional Enrollment
              1,000 or 1,001 –       5,001 –     10,001 –      20,001       All
               under    5,000        10,000       20,000       or over
Yes               75.4%    82.1%      81.8%         97.9%       84.6%      83.3%
No                21.1%    15.1%      13.6%             0.0%      7.7%     13.4%
Don’t Know          3.5%    2.8%       4.5%             2.1%      7.7%      3.3%

         Percentage of Student Participation in Service
         Learning
                           Private             Public            All
         First-Year            45.3%              28.8%            39.5%
         Transfer              32.9%              17.8%            27.2%
         Sophomore             30.0%              20.5%            26.9%
         Junior                31.1%              25.2%            29.0%
         Senior                33.6%              28.4%            31.6%
Undergraduate Research
Undergraduate Research Opportunities      by Enrollment
             1,000 or 1,001 –       5,001 –   10,001 – 20,000        All
              under    5,000        10,000     20,000 or over
Yes             82.1%       90.3%     95.3%      97.9%    96.2%     91.2%
No              16.1%        6.3%      0.0%       2.1%     3.8%      6.0%
Don’t Know       1.8%        3.4%      4.7%       0.0%     0.0%      2.8%

               Percentage of Student Participation by Level
                                Private        Public         All
               First-Year           15.1%         10.9%           13.4%
               Transfer             16.3%         12.1%           14.5%
               Sophomore            18.9%         25.5%           27.3%
               Junior               28.6%         25.5%           27.3%
               Senior               39.6%         34.0%           37.3%
Summation
Institutional emphasis still tends to be on the
  first or the senior year.
Size matters: smaller institutions are more
  likely to involve more students in whatever
  they offer.
Large institutions are trying to “look like”
  smaller institutions through learning
  communities.
For What Shall This Institution Be
Known?
 Is there a common identity?

 Who owns that identity – who ignores it?

 How will that identity become part of each
  stage of the undergraduate experience?

 How will graduates represent, and act in
  accordance with, that identity?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:9/4/2013
language:
pages:16