How NSSE Focus Group Outcomes Shape Our Understanding of the ESU Experience The Role of Qualitative Data from Residents and Commuters 1
Today’s Objectives • Review the methods used to conduct the NSSE Student Services Focus Group Pilot Study • Describe the composition of the four FG sessions’ participants • Review the highlights of the FG’s exploratory findings • Discuss the next steps leading to a confirmatory survey of ESU students 2
Background – The NSSE • OAA administers the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the spring semester to all eligible freshmen and seniors who have been at ESU at least since the preceding fall. • The online survey asks students about their experiences at ESU in a variety of areas in an effort to gauge their engagement in the university campus culture and academic life. • Many questions focus on students’ attitudes toward various services, offices, events, and people that are under the auspices of ESU’s Student Affairs division. • A brief analysis of the results of this survey are typically presented to Student Affairs individuals at the annual SA retreat in January. This includes data from the last 3 administrations. • Focus groups have been informally discussed as a potential follow-up to the NSSE since at least summer 2014. 3
Methodology • July 2015: Drs. Tobin and Moses approached Dr. Ziner, OAA Director, for help in conducting a focus group of ESU students to build on data gathered during the last NSSE administration. • Through a series of meetings that included representatives from the Student Enrollment Center as well as Housing and Residence Life, the group decided to focus on students’ different experiences in attending ESU based on their residency status – whether they lived on campus in a dorm or commuted to ESU. • Four focus groups were to be conducted in the fall 2015 semester, once the drop-add period had ended: Two for residents (split by underclassmen and upperclassmen) and two for commuters (also split by class). 4
Methodology - Continued • To have the greatest chance of meeting a 12-person attendance target, Dr. Ziner asked Kizzy Morris (Student Enrollment Center) to draw a random selection of 200 students who fit into each of the four categories for a total of 800 students who were asked to participate. • Students were emailed at their ESU addresses asking if they wanted to commit one hour of their time for a “NSSE Student Services Focus Group.” • They were given only one time slot, depending on their residency and class status, and were asked to contact Bob Moses’ office to confirm their participation. • Students were offered a $20 gift card to their choice of either Wawa or Walmart, and all participants were told snacks and beverages would be available. 5
Methodology - Demographics • Students were given approximately a week’s notice before focus groups were scheduled to be conducted, and they were sent reminders regularly to ensure higher participation rates. • Focus group sessions were moderated by Dr. Ziner on Tuesday, November 3 and Thursday, November 5 at 2:00pm and 3:30pm in the Housing and Residence Life conference room located in Hemlock Suites. • Each student who attended a focus group session was provided with an informed consent form that documented their rights and responsibilities as far as this research project entailed, while Bob Moses confirmed their gift card choice before each session. • Gift cards were awarded approximately one week after the focus groups concluded. A student had to attend the entire group session to be eligible for the gift card. 6
Methodology - Demographics • In total, 53 students volunteered to participate in one of the four focus groups, out of a maximum number of 56 spaces allotted (14 for each group). • 42 students actually participated in the four focus group sessions, with group sizes ranging from 8 to 13. • Overall, 23 students (54%) were observed to be White, while 13 (31%) were observed to be Black. • 11 students (26%) were male, while 31 (74%) were female. • Students’ majors were from a wide range representing each of the five colleges. • The demographics associated with each focus group are as follows: 7
Methodology - Demographics Residents, Freshmen and Sophomores Commuters, Freshmen and Sophomores November 3, 2015 – 2:00-3:00pm November 5, 2015 – 2:00-3:00pm • Total Attendance: 13 • Total Attendance: 8 • 6 males, 7 females • 2 males, 6 females • White: 7 (54%) • White: 5 (63%) • Black: 4 (31%) • Black: 3 (37%) • Hispanic: 1 (8%) • Other: 1 (8%) Residents, Juniors and Seniors Commuters, Juniors and Seniors November 3, 2015 – 3:30-4:30pm November 5, 2015 – 3:30-4:30pm • Total Attendance: 9 • Total Attendance: 12 • 1 male, 8 females • 2 males, 10 females • White: 3 (33%) • White: 8 (67%) • Black: 3 (33%) • Black: 3 (25%) • Hispanic: 1 (11%) • Hispanic: 1 (8%) • Asian: 2 (22%) 8
Déjà Vu All Over Again At Last Year’s Retreat, I Pointed Out … ü FGs are useful as a type of exploratory pilot study ü Provide rich data often unobtainable by other methods ü Can be conducted quickly and generally are low-cost to run ü Not useful for making predictions or supporting hypotheses ü FGs raise serious questions of accuracy & reliability, if used as a single study method to shape or inform policy ü Should be used to shape the scope and direction of follow- up survey-based (quantitative) research, when considering the implementation of FG outcomes/findings as policy 9
On Familiarity with Student Services In this first area, FG sessions’ objectives included: 1. Do students know what is a ‘student service”? (“What comes to mind?”) 2. Identifying which student services they have used at ESU (Using a list of services provided on an index card) 3. For those services cited as being used, to determine whether the experience was positive or negative, whether anything stood out , and whether a specific person contributed to that experience 4. Identifying whether there was a student service area/office that did not meet their expectations 10
On Familiarity with Student Services We found: 1. Some differences in response patterns between residents and commuters: • Commuters provided a much larger array of positive and negative stand outs compared to their resident peers • Residents provided a larger array of student service areas that did not meet their expectations compared to their commuter peers 2. The possibility that a response bias may be in play among session participants, where FG attendance may mask their candor compared to the anonymity of a survey 11
On Experiences Living on Campus at ESU In this second area, FG sessions’ objectives among residents included: 1. Identifying what they liked about living on campus in residence halls, including providing at least one positive and one negative experience 2. Identifying whether or not their campus experience living in a residence hall could be improved 3. Determine the types of campus activities to which they are engaged We found: 1. Some differences in response patterns between F/So and Jr/Sr class groupings were identified (e.g., Jr/Sr participants reported more engagement in activities) 2. F/So participants reported more negative experiences than their Jr/Sr peers (We hypothesize that Jr/Sr participants may be used to many of the negatives reported by F/So (e.g., people up late, thin walls, fire drills) 12
On Experiences Living off Campus In this third area, FG sessions’ objectives among commuters included: 1. Identifying what they liked about living off campus, including providing at least one positive and one negative experience 2. Identifying whether or not their experience living off campus effects their level of engagement in campus activities, including the types of activities in which they are engaged We found: 1. No clear differences in response patterns were identified among F/So and Jr/Sr commuters, i.e., they shared similar positive and negative experiences 2. One area of departure was in their respective engagements in campus activities, where Jr/Sr commuters reported higher levels than their F/So peers 13
On How Students Spend Their Time In this fourth area, FG sessions’ objectives among residents and commuters included: 1. Identifying how students spend their time when they are not in class 2. Determining whether students believe the university offers enough opportunities to be involved socially on campus, including identifying the ways students became aware of these opportunities and how effective they are We found: 1. Among residents, F/So participants were more likely than their Jr/Sr peers to (1) report ESU did not provide enough opportunities to be involved socially on campus and (2) be less aware of the ways to become involved socially on campus 2. Commuters report they are at a disadvantage living off campus when it comes to being aware of opportunities for involvement socially on campus 14
On Students’ Overall Experience at ESU In this last area, FG sessions’ objectives among residents and commuters included: 1. Identifying if students would enroll at ESU if they could do it over again, including the reasons why or why not 2. Determining if students would recommend ESU to prospective students, including the rationale for their decision 3. Determining if their opinion of ESU has changed since they began their studies and, if so, how and why 15
Recommend
More recommend
