The Relationship of On-Campus Living with Student Engagement

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 oncampus 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
Engagement Indicators
Themes Academic Challenge Learning with Peers Experiences with Faculty Campus Environment Engagement Indicators Higher-­‐Order Learning Reflec5ve & Integra5ve Learning Learning Strategies Quan5ta5ve Reasoning Collabora5ve Learning Discussions with Diverse Others Student-­‐Faculty Interac5on Effec5ve Teaching Prac5ces Quality of Interac5ons Suppor5ve Environment 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 Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) 7 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 Part-­‐0me Not Tradi0onal Age (over 20 years) Seniors Part-­‐0me Not Tradi0onal Age (over 23 years) % WITHIN % FARTHER THAN % On Campus Walking Distance walking distance 1 4 11 1% 14% 26% % WITHIN % FARTHER THAN % On Campus Walking Distance walking distance 4 11 24 6% 15% 55% Study Sample
… after removing part-time and nontraditional students:
Living On Campus First-­‐year (full-­‐0me & tradi0onal age) Senior (full-­‐0me & tradi0onal age) WITHIN FARTHER Walking THAN walking Distance distance 118,724 10,187 25,553 41,386 51,991 55,745 Student Characteris5cs First-­‐Year Students Male % Living On Campus % WITHIN % FARTHER Walking THAN walking Distance distance 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 Transfer 4 42 7 55 6 Student Characteris5cs Seniors Male % Living On Campus % WITHIN % FARTHER Walking THAN walking Distance distance 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 % WITHIN Walking walking distance Distance Research Univ (very high research ac0vity) 17 19 11 Research Univ (high research ac0vity) 13 15 15 6 8 8 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 Doctoral/Research Univ Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) Ins5tu5onal Types Seniors % FARTHER THAN % WITHIN Walking walking % Living On distance Campus Distance Research Univ (very high research ac0vity) 12 22 17 Research Univ (high research ac0vity) 10 20 18 5 6 7 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 2 2 2 Doctoral/Research Univ Master's Colleges and Univ (larger prog) Other 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.
Students’ Time Use
NSSE Item
Hours per week:
ü  Preparing for class
ü  Participating in
co-curricular
activities
ü  Doing community
service
ü  Relaxing and
socializing
Students’ Time Use
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)
Quality of Interactions
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.)
Quality of Interactions
Findings
In general, living on campus
benefits…
u 
FY students –
Interactions with
other students
u 
Seniors –
Interactions with
advisors and faculty
Quality of Interactions
100 With Other Students
More first-year
students living on
campus reported
high-quality
interactions* with
other students.
80 Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Other Students as High* 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage rating at least 6 on a
7-point scale
WITHIN walking distance FARTHER THAN walking distance Quality of Interactions
With Advisors
More senior students
and slightly more
first-year students
living on campus
reported high-quality
interactions* with
advisors.
100 Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Advisors as High* 80 First-­‐year Senior 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage rating at least 6 on a
7-point scale
WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance Quality of Interactions
100 With Other Students—
Race/Ethnicity
Generally, African
American students
benefited less from
living on campus than
their White
counterparts.
80 Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Other Students as High* Black/AA White 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage rating at least 6 on a
7-point scale
WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance Quality of Interactions
With Faculty—
Race/Ethnicity
Generally, African
American students
benefited less from
living on campus than
their White
counterparts.
100 80 Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Faculty as High* Black/AA White 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage rating at least 6 on a
7-point scale
WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance Quality of Interactions
With Staff—
Race/Ethnicity
Generally, African
American students
benefited less from
living on campus than
their White
counterparts.
100 80 Percentage FY Students Ra5ng Interac5ons w/Staff as High* Black/AA White 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage rating at least 6 on a
7-point scale
WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance 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).
Supportive Environment
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
Supportive Environment
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 
u 
u 
Proving opportunities to be
involved socially
Providing support for their
overall well-being
Attending campus activities
and events
Supportive Environment
100% 80% Ins5tu5onal Emphasis on FY Students AXending Campus Events by Ins5tu5on Type ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance 60% 40% 20% 0% RU/VH RU/H DRU MA-­‐L * Percentage responding “Quite a bit” or “Very much”
MA-­‐M MA-­‐S Bac/A&S Bac/Div Supportive Environment
However, there
were generally no
benefits for
students living on
campus with
regards to the
institutional
emphasis on
contact among
diverse others.
100% Ins5tu5onal Emphasis on Contact among FY Students of Different Backgrounds 80% Female Male 60% 40% 20% 0% ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking FARTHER THAN Distance Walking Distance * Percentage responding “Quite a bit” or “Very much”
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.
% Living On Campus % WITHIN Walking Distance % FARTHER THAN walking distance Race/Ethnicity 83 76 79 Econ. Background 77 70 70 Religious Beliefs 74 68 71 Poli0cal Views 66 60 61 Asian * Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”
Discussions with Diverse Others
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 % WITHIN Walking Distance % FARTHER THAN walking distance Race/Ethnicity 82 74 73 Econ. Background 79 73 70 Religious Beliefs 73 67 67 Poli0cal Views 70 65 64 * Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”
Discussions with Diverse Others
Findings
Living on campus
seems to benefit
first-year women
more than firstyear men on
discussions with
those from
different religious
beliefs and political
views.
100 * Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”
80 Diverse Discussions: First-­‐Year Women Religious beliefs Poli0cal views 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance Discussions with Diverse Others
Findings
Living on campus
seems to benefit
first-year women
more than firstyear men on
discussions with
those from
different religious
beliefs and political
views.
100 80 Diverse Discussions: First-­‐Year Men Religious beliefs 60 40 20 0 Living On Campus * Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”
Poli0cal views WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance Diverse Interactions
100% 80% Ins5tu5onal Ac5vi5es Emphasized* FY Perspec5ves on Social Differences by Ins5tu5on Type ON CAMPUS WITHIN Walking Distance FARTHER THAN Walking Distance 60% 40% 20% 0% RU/VH RU/H DRU MA-­‐L * Percentage responding “Quite a bit” or “Very much”
MA-­‐M MA-­‐S Bac/A&S Bac/Div 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).
Student-Faculty Interaction
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.)?
Student-Faculty Interaction
On-campus first-year students work with
faculty on activities outside of class more
than those living farther than walking
distance.
% Living On Campus % WITHIN Walking Distance % FARTHER THAN walking 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 * Percentage responding “Often” or “Very often”
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 oncampus?
•  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.