1. Thinking Globally and Acting Locally Engaging International Students in Community Colleges Deryl Hatch & Abdul Tamimi NISOD Conference, June 2, 2010 Austin, Texas

2. About your presenters  Deryl Hatch  Ph.D. student, UT Austin  International comparative higher education  Research Assistant at the Center for Community College Student Engagement  Ed.M., Educational Technology, Harvard University  B.A., Linguistics, Brigham Young University  Abdul Tamimi  Ph.D. student, UT Austin  Community college leadership  Dean of Ed. Programs and Org. Development at Lone Star College-CyFair  Adjunct faculty ESL  M.A,. Cross Cultural Studies, University of Houston, Clear Lake  B.S., Healthcare Administration, Texas Southern University 22 June 2010

3. Outline of presentation I. Brief Overview of Community College Survey for Student Engagement (CCSSE) II. Working Definition of International Students, Language Minorities, and Nationals III. Overview of CCSSE benchmarks IV. Engagement benchmark scores of international students V. Other Data - Community and Cultural Engagement VI. Summary - Key Findings 32 June 2010

4. Community College Survey of Student Engagement ( CCSSE )  Institutional practices and student behaviors  Research based  Since 2003 (nationally)  Benchmarks (more details later)  Relationship engagement related to student outcomes 42 June 2010

5. What do we know of students’ nationality through CCSSE ? 52 June 2010

6. Language × Nationality International/ Foreign National US Citizen English native (first) lang. 6,416 (1.6%) 333,310 (85.8%) Other 18,094 (4.7%) 30,820 (7.9%) 62 June 2010

7. International status, values, perspective  “Nationals”: Majority U.S. residents (*all races)  “Language Minorities”: Bring int’l values (*all races)  “Internationals”: Bring int’l perspective (*all races) International/ Foreign National US Citizen English native (first) lang. 24,510 (6.3%) 333,310 (85.8%) Other 30,820 (7.9%) 72 June 2010

8. How many international students enrolled at your campus? 82 June 2010 a)Less than 5% b)5 to 15% c)More than 15%

9. Grouping colleges by distribution of internationals and language minorities 92 June 2010 Percent of National Majority Students (of all races) Frequency Decile Groups of Colleges: ~66 Each Percent of Respondents

10. Questions  Among the different groups at your campus, which do you think is most engaged?  Why?  Which group benefits the most from having international students at your campus?  What questions do you have? 102 June 2010

11. How do colleges compare in student engagement? Within colleges? Active and Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty Interaction Support for Learners Active and Collaborative Learning Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Made a class presentation Worked with other students on projects during class Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Etc… 112 June 2010

12. Benchmark: Active and Collaborative Learning 122 June 2010 What do you think is happening? a)Collaborative learning happens more with people like you b)Collaborative learning depends on college/class size c)Community resources available to int’l students

13. Benchmark: Student Effort Active and Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty Interaction Support for Learners Student Effort Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in Used peer or other tutoring servicesUsed skill labs How many books read on your own; hours spent preparing for class Etc… 132 June 2010

14. Benchmark: Student Effort 142 June 2010 Principal cause for such a separation? a)Language barriers b)Student motivation c)Enrollment requirements for immigration status

15. Benchmark: Academic Challenge Active and Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty Interaction Support for Learners Academic Challenge Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectation Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences in new ways Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations To what extent have your examinations challenged you to do your best work Etc… 152 June 2010

16. Benchmark: Academic Challenge 162 June 2010 Why are there different levels of academic challenge across types of colleges? a)College size b)Type of international students enrolled c)Big city life and complexities vs. small town

17. Benchmark: Student/Faculty Interaction Active and Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty Interaction Support for Learners Student-Faculty Interaction Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on your performance Etc… 172 June 2010

18. Benchmark: Student/Faculty Interaction 182 June 2010 International students a bit higher than nationals, but same small difference across the board. Why? a)Simply a function of college/class size b)Instructors engage all kinds of students equally c)International students more often full time, approach faculty more

19. Benchmark: Support for Learners Active and Collaborative Learning Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty Interaction Support for Learners Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college Used academic advising/planning services Helping you cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) Providing the support you need to thrive socially Etc… 192 June 2010

20. Benchmark: Support for Learners 202 June 2010 What’s going on here? a)At small, rural colleges, int’l services serve fewer students b)At large, urban colleges, more community resources; less dependence c)Other?

21. Community and cultural engagement  GLONACAL:  “The simultaneous significance of global, national, and local dimensions and forces”  Marginson and Rhoads (2002) 212 June 2010 GLONACAL Global National Local

22. Does experience at this college contribute to understanding of others? 222 June 2010 GLONACAL Global Dimension? National Local

23. How often do students have conversations among students of different backgrounds? GLONACAL Global Dimension? National Local 232 June 2010

24. How often do students have conversations among students with divergent views? GLONACAL Global Dimension? National Local 242 June 2010

25. National dimensions of higher education  CCSSE is largely focused at the individual and institutional level. GLONACAL Global National Dimension? Local 252 June 2010

26. How often do students participate in college sponsored community based projects? GLONACAL Global National Local Dimension? 262 June 2010

27. Does experience at this college contribute to involvement in welfare of the community? GLONACAL Global National Local Dimension? 272 June 2010

28. How many hours do students spend in college sponsored activities? GLONACAL Global National Local Dimension? 282 June 2010

29. Key findings of CCSSE benchmarks  CCSSE – “Research shows that the more actively engaged students are — with college faculty and staff, with other students, and with the subject matter — the more likely they are to learn and to achieve their academic goals.”  International students are among the most engaged groups on campus  International students bring different perspectives  National students appear to benefit most from international student enrolment 292 June 2010

30. Q&A and next steps  What will you do with the data and findings?  How are you going to involve your international students to ensure active engagement at your campus?  What do these findings suggest as hypotheses for research? 302 June 2010

31. References  Chaves, C. A. (2003) Student involvement in the community college setting. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, EDO-JC-03-02.  Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281-309.  McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.  Pfaffenroth, S. (1997). Clarifying institutional policy toward international students: A community college self-study model. Princeton, NJ: Mid-Career Fellowship Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409945)  Romano, R.M. (2002). Internationalizing the community college. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.  Szelényi, K., & Chang, J.C. (2002). ERIC Review: Educating immigrants: The community college role. Community College Review, 30(2), 55-73. doi: 10.1177/009155210203000204  Zhao, C., Kuh, G.D., & Carini, R.M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209-231. 312 June 2010