• No results found

The Importance of Qualitative Research in Providing Evidence for Student Support Services Standards

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Importance of Qualitative Research in Providing Evidence for Student Support Services Standards"

Copied!
27
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

The Importance of

Qualitative Research in

Providing Evidence for

Student Support Services

Standards

Raelynn Cooter, PhD

Christine Lysionek, PhD

Kris Peluszak, MSEd

(2)

Presentation Focus

Important Role of focus groups in

assessing student and academic support

services

Highlight the positives and challenges of

focus groups identified in the literature

Provide examples from two institutions of

how the positives from conducting focus

groups have been captured and the

challenges of conducting focus groups

have been met

(3)

Standard 9 Student Support

Services

(Twelfth Edition)

The institution provides student support services

reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.

Fundamental Element

Ongoing assessment of student

support services and the

utilization of assessment results

for improvement.

(4)

Standard 4 Support of the

Student Experience

…..

The institution commits to student retention, persistence, and completion through a coherent and effective support

system….., which enhances the quality of the learning

environment, contributes to the educational experience, and fosters success.

Periodic assessment of the

effectiveness of programs supporting

the student experience.

(5)

Focus Group Positives

5

Enrichment of summary data

• Enriches quantitative findings and/or highlights areas where deeper quantitative study is required.

Group Participation

• Allows individuals to interact with participants, ask

questions of each other, re-evaluate own understanding and feel involved in decision making.

Modification of topics

• Dynamic nature of conversation can lead to modification of topic.

Moderator

• Using a moderator ensures that conversation is always ethical and on track. Encourage participant engagement without one individual dominating the meeting.

(6)

Focus Group Challenges

6

Individual Participants

• Discussion can be dominated by one or two individuals and cause participation bias.

Moderator Bias

• Moderator has to allow participants to discuss and

examine topic without directly influencing content with personal bias.

Small sample size

• Focus groups tend to be a small sample of a much larger portion of population.

Time

• Discussion can take too long to be sure that all topics are covered equally.

(7)

Cabrini College Retention Study

 Do significant differences exist between retention

of first-to-second year African American, Latino and Caucasian students?

 Quantitative Analysis I

- Three consecutive entering cohorts FTFT UG’s (N = 1199)

- Findings

o No significant difference for Caucasians and

Latinos

o Difference for African Americans; retained

at a statistically significant lower rate

(8)

Retention Study

 Do significant differences exist between these three groups on factors related to retention (internal & external research)?

 Statistical comparison between retention and 18 pre & post entry independent variables

 Quantitative Analysis II

- Findings: African Americans

o Significantly lower 1st year GPA’s (strong correlation

b/t HS GPA & Cabrini GPA); strongest predictor of retention

o Significantly lower EFCs & and more likely to be Pell

grant recipients

o Significantly more likely to be first gen

o Significantly less likely to be a student athlete, an

on-campus resident or participant in an LLC

(9)

Retention Study

Question:

On the basis of these

findings, where would

you direct your

retention resources?

(10)

Retention Study

Qualitative Data

o

Focus group & Individual Interviews (N

= 15)

o

Two facilitators

o

10 Question Protocol re: personal

perceptions of campus climate for

inclusivity

o

Content analysis – themes, patterns of

response; correspondence with prior

“diversity audit” focus group findings

(11)

Retention Study

Findings - Positives

o

Support & encouragement from

faculty, staff & advisors

o

Visible symbolic, academic,

programmatic, hiring and

recruitment commitment to

diversity

o

Sense of pride at being at the

(12)

Retention Study

Findings – Negatives

o Transition Issues

o Roommate difficulties, homesickness;

pressure from friends at home to return each weekend during their first year; “culture shock”

o Isolation & Discomfort

o Majority students unconcerned about their

issues; “Micro-aggressions” - being singled out in class; erroneous assumptions about their pre-college experience; having to

(13)

Retention Study

Findings – Negatives

o Not reacting to racial comments or jokes to

avoid being labeled as “overly sensitive”

o Campus discussions of race only when negative

things occur

o College’s tendency to “view all students as the

same;” failure to distinguish between

“equality (treating all students the same) and equity (giving students what they need to

accrue the same outcomes as others.”

(14)

Retention Study

Question:

Do these findings influence

your response to the first

question, i.e., where

would you direct your

retention resources?

(15)

Retention Study

 Benefits of Combined Approach

o More comprehensive view of retention than

we had previously - Not just about “inputs”

o Allows improved planning, budgeting and

intentionality re: retention initiatives

o Increased attention to considering “differences

by race/ethnicity” in surveys and other student-related research moving forward; increased sensitivity to distinction b/t

(16)

Retention Study

Challenges of Mixed Methods Approach

o

Data collection & analysis is labor intensive

o

Limited generalizability:

o

Small “N” for focus groups & interviews

o

Typically “convenience sample” or “opt-in” volunteers

o

Serves to highlight areas where more research is

required

(17)

Thomas Jefferson University

Middle States Self-Study

Student representatives on each of the Middle

States Self-Study Task Forces but they wanted

to include a broader student voice in

responding to self-study research questions.

Quantitative Analysis

o Student Satisfaction Surveys

o

Overall Satisfaction average range 2.7 –

3.3 (4 point scale) with isolated “areas of

concern” each year

.

(18)

Middle States Self-Study

 Findings

Scores across the majority of divisions

and services indicates students are

satisfied.

Identification of “areas of concern”

Satisfaction scores combined with open

ended comments help focus the

response and identify resources for

“areas of concern.”

(19)

Middle States Self-Study

Question:

On the basis of these findings,

to what other areas should

resources be directed? How

do you prioritize resource

allocation to areas that show

satisfaction scores between

2.7 and 3.0?

(20)

Middle States Self-Study

Qualitative Data

Committee of Student Advisors -

Established in 1998 to promote and

facilitate ongoing communication

between students and all

administrative areas

Student Representatives from all

academic divisions

Students in attendance at focus groups

encouraged to bring a “non-CSA

member” student colleague

Questions covered assessment of all

(21)

Middle States Self-Study

Findings – Positives

Reinforced high satisfaction with:

Financial Aid Office interactions;

Physical Safety and Mental Well

Being;

Services and Information provided

to students during clinical rotations;

and

Cultural competency - across

academic programs.

(22)

Middle States Self-Study

Findings – Negatives, New Information and

Surprises

 Negatives:

 Housing online application; and  Problem wireless areas.

 New Information:

 Ideal Study Space specifications;

 Confusion – IT services and Media services.  Surprise:

 Significant student concern - judicial

process is different among schools.

(23)

Middle States Self-Study

Question:

Do these findings help

direct the focus of resource

allocation and policy and

procedure development?

(24)

Middle States Self-Study

Response – The ability to identify next steps based on

qualitative findings

 Resources:

 Housing online application - higher priority.  Expansion of wireless ports.

 Repurposed four rooms into “ideal study space”.  Education

 Improve understanding of IT Services and Media Services.

 Policy

 Judicial Policies under review to ensure consistency across schools.

(25)

Middle States Self-Study

Benefits and Challenges of Mixed Methods

Approach

 Benefits

 Enrichment of Summary Data – Increased

specificity for focusing resources

 CSA serves as a “continuous focus group”

thereby minimizing “surprise concerns.”

 Challenges

 Influential Participants – Some intervention

needed

 Moderator Bias - Administrators in attendance

- ONLY to respond to areas of confusion.

 Small sample size - CSA members “opt-in”

volunteers. Encouraged to “bring a friend”.

(26)

QUESTIONS

Raelynn Cooter – Raelynn.Cooter@jefferson.edu

Christine Lysionek – Christine.Lysionek@cabrini.edu

Kris Peluszak – Kris.Peluszak@jefferson.edu

(27)

References

 Middle States Commission on Higher

Education. (2014) Requirements of affiliation and standards for

accreditation (13th ed). Retrieved from http://www.msche.org/publications.asp

 Association of Institutional Research.

(2012) Conducting focus groups with college students: Strategies to ensure success. Retrieved from

https://www.jwu.edu/uploadedFiles/Do cuments/Academics/JWUGradCREFocus GroupsBillups.pdf

 Creswell, J. W. (2008) Educational

research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

 Jones, P.W., & Kottler, J.A. (2006)

Understanding research: Becoming a competent and critical consumer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

 Middle States Commission on Higher

Education. (2006) Characteristics of excellence in higher education. Eligibility requirements and standards for accreditation. Retrieved from

http://www.msche.org/publications/CH X06060320124919.pdf

 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005)

Practical research: Planning and

designing (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

 Group Plus. (June 2003) Focus group

research: Why traditional research methodology works so effectively and why it deserves to be the most

respected of all qualitative research tools. Retrieved from

http://www.groupsplus.com/pages/Res pect3.htm

 Bullock, M. & Jones, J. (1999) Beyond

Surveys: Using focus groups to evaluate university career services. Journal of career planning and employment, 4, 38 – 44.

 Gibbs, A. (1997) Focus groups. Social

References

Related documents

The quantitative segment of the research pertains to its first goal, which was to identify the attitudes of Croatian citizens and their readiness for the acceptance and integration

For further information about becoming an instructor in any of the Conservation Education courses (Firearm Safety / Hunter Education, Bowhunter and Trapper Education),

Under its mobile handset data tariffs, the operator offers three time-based packages allowing consumers to consume data on an hourly basis ($1 per hour for 500 MB allowance),

Double-enroll to take hour-long lessons for applied instruction throughout your senior year until your recital has been presented (e.g., if you want to present a SIP Recital in

It sought evidences for these by examining the regulatory behaviours of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), an institution

SmartPort time container release time lateness probability (slack time) deadline at DC transport time (distribution) transport modes (truck or barge) Decision variables. planned

La procédure judiciaire reconnaît une place importante opération de qualification Faisant suite établissement des faits cette opération est un préalable application

Our model shows good qualitative agreement between the simulated fibre orientation field and the experimental data on LV anisotropy, and the model can be used for various