I think it would be helpful to see the actual items that make up the
factors that are presented in the summary data. This would give us some
specific weaknesses, and might guide our discussion. For example, are we
talking about having fewer large lecture sections of first year courses,
or are we talking about changing the way that large lecture classes are
conducted? Of course the answer can be "both," but seeing the items
would help me focus on what could indeed be changed.
Anecdotal feedback that I have received from students indicates that
they are not being challenged by coursework in the first year. I don't
know if this is because gen ed forces them to be taking the same general
coursework they completed in high school, or if the expectations are
simply too low.
Joanne
From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Steve Perry
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Follow-up to TB Group
Hi Jim and TBer's,
Patty Francis and I appreciate the opportunity to share the NSSE data
and talk about student engagement with the Teaching Breakfast group. I
have attached the NSSE presentation for anyone interested.
In addition, there were some good questions about what institutions
noted as having high levels of student engagement do. The following link
should take anyone interested to three articles about the DEEP project.
Here is an excerpt from one describing DEEP (Documenting Effective
Educational Practice). Researchers "spent almost two years immersing
themselves in the daily work of twenty campuses. The institutions
studied during the project are small, large, urban, rural, historically
black, majority white, commuter and residential, highly selective, and
not selective at all. Their common denominator is that they all have
participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and
have scored better than predicted across some or all of this survey's
five benchmarks of effective educational practice: level of academic
challenge, active and collaborative learning, student interaction with
faculty members, enriching educational experiences, and supportive
campus environment. All twenty also enjoy a graduation rate that is
higher than predicted after taking into account relevant student and
institutional characteristics. The Project DEEP team, working through
the NSSE Institute, used student engagement as a proxy for quality
because engagement has been shown to be the best predictor of student
success,
after controlling for past academic performance and preparation."
(Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Going DEEP: Learning from campuses
that share responsibility for student success.
<http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/Kinzie,%20J.%20and%20Kuh,%20G.D.%20(2004)%20
Going%20Deep.pdf> About Campus, 9 (5), 2)
http://nsse.iub.edu/html/pubs.cfm?search_keywords=DEEP&allyears
<http://nsse.iub.edu/html/pubs.cfm?search_keywords=DEEP&allyears> =
Steve Perry
From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Jim Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Apologies to TB Group
My apologies to Steve Perry and to the Teaching Breakfast group for
missing today's get together. Can someone let me know how it went (or
didn't go).
:-(
My bad.
Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820
blog: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.blogspot.com
wiki: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.wikidot.com
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701
fax: 607-436-3081
IM: oneontatltc
Twitter: greenbjb
"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"
P Think before you print! Please consider the environment before
printing this email
|
