Theoretical Student engagement ( Approaches to Multiple Foundations Kuh, 2003; Kuh, 2001; learning instruments on Pascarella & Terenzini, model 1987b; Prosser student 2005) (Astin, 1985); & Trigwell, engagement, Research 1999; Ramsden, satisfaction and university (Kerr, 1979, 1991; learning 2001) Richardson, outcomes 1983) Survey Content: Participation in Academic, Satisfaction with Content and Topics educationally research and civic teaching quality, organization of purposeful activities, engagement, time assessment and teaching, institutional allocation, feedback, acquired skills, requirements of learning academic preparation for coursework, perceptions outcomes support, career, academic of the college assessment, organization and guidance, quality environment, campus climate, management, of assessment, educational and plans and learning contact hours, personal growth, etc. aspirations, resources, internships, satisfaction with personal quality of academic development, learning program, global overall environment, etc. experiences, experience, etc. learning and technology, etc. Survey Content (McCormick & (Chatman, 2009, (Callender, (Brenders, 2013) Validity and McClenney, 2012; 2011) Ramsden, & Reliability Pascarella, Seifert, & Griggs, 2014; Studies Blaich, 2008; Pike, Richardson, 2013) Slater, & Wilson, 2007) Data Collection: Census-based/random Census-based Census-based Census-based Sample sample survey of survey of survey of last survey of and senior students undergraduate students undergraduate students students Data Collection: Online and paper-based; Online; Once a Online and Online; Once a Method and Once a year year paper-based; year Frequency Once a year Data Collection: 25-30% 25-30% 71% 34% Response Rates Data Analysis Centralized approach. Decentralized Centralized Centralized approach. approach. approach. Engagement indicators (benchmarks) and item Factor scores and Item by item Item by item by item comparisons item by item comparisons comparisons comparisons Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Data Use Mostly internal: for Mostly internal: Mostly external: Mostly external: benchmarking,voluntary for program to inform to inform
Theoretical Foundations Student engagement ( Kuh, 2003; Kuh, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) model (Astin, 1985); Research university (Kerr, 2001) Approaches to learning 1987b; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 1979, 1991; Richardson, 1983) Multiple instruments on student engagement, satisfaction and learning outcomes Survey Content: Topics Participation in educationally purposeful activities, institutional requirements of coursework, perceptions of the college environment, educational and personal growth, etc. Academic, research and civic engagement, time allocation, learning outcomes assessment, campus climate, plans and aspirations, satisfaction with academic program, global experiences, learning and technology, etc. Satisfaction with teaching quality, assessment and feedback, academic support, organization and management, learning resources, personal development, overall experience, etc. Content and organization of teaching, acquired skills, preparation for career, academic guidance, quality of assessment, contact hours, internships, quality of learning environment, etc. Survey Content Validity and Reliability Studies (McCormick & McClenney, 2012; Pascarella, Seifert, & Blaich, 2008; Pike, 2013) (Chatman, 2009, 2011) (Callender, Ramsden, & Griggs, 2014; Richardson, Slater, & Wilson, 2007) (Brenders, 2013) Data Collection: Sample Census-based/random sample survey of and senior students Census-based survey of undergraduate students Census-based survey of last students Census-based survey of undergraduate students Data Collection: Method and Frequency Online and paper-based; Once a year Online; Once a year Online and paper-based; Once a year Online; Once a year Data Collection: Response Rates 25-30% 25-30% 71% 34% Data Analysis Table 2 (continued) Centralized approach. Engagement indicators (benchmarks) and item by item comparisons Decentralized approach. Factor scores and item by item comparisons Centralized approach. Item by item comparisons Centralized approach. Item by item comparisons Table 2 (continued) Data Use Mostly internal: for benchmarking,voluntary Mostly internal: for program Mostly external: to inform Mostly external: to inform
tsle_m_klemencic_i_chirikov_final_ic_mk_changes_accepted.docx