Presentation on theme: "PT3 Join Together: EFFECTIVE RECRUITING SURVEY Aggregated Results Developed by Melissa DeLana, 2006."— Presentation transcript:
PT3 Join Together: EFFECTIVE RECRUITING SURVEY Aggregated Results Developed by Melissa DeLana, 2006
Effective Recruiting Survey Purpose: Assist universities improve their recruitment and retention of students with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds Process: Began with a pilot university at Lamar University; Replicated at Illinois State University, Flagler Collge, & Western Oregon University; Participation voluntary & confidential Technology: Created with online Survey Monkey software (www.surveymonkey.com)www.surveymonkey.com
Survey: Response Rate Survey Sent to 183 Students BS, MS, Ed.D. in Deaf Education Response Rate 122:183 = 78% Lamar University 39:50 Illinois State University 7:11 Flagler College 59:93 Western Oregon University 17:29
Group Demographics: Ethnicity Total Respondents For This Question: 116 Note: Statistics reflect survey respondents, not programs.
Group Demographics: Hearing Status Total Respondents for this Question:121 Note: Statistics reflect survey respondents, not programs.
Data Collection: Student Priorities We asked students: We would like for you to think back to the time when you were deciding where to go to college. In your decision-making process, what were your priorities?
High Priorities By Diversity Culturally Diverse StudentsNon-Diverse Students 1.Faculty Expertise (4.57) 2.Availability of Scholarships (4.10) 3.Availability of Tuition Waivers (3.94) 4.Curriculum/Methodology (3.76) 5.Faculty Language Use (3.76) 6.Level of Academic Rigor (3.67) 7.Culturally Friendly (3.55) 8.Positive Comments from Students/Alums (3.52) 1.Faculty Expertise (4.40) 2.Curriculum/Methodology (3.88) 3.Location of College, State/Region (3.74) 4.Cost of Tuition (3.72) 5.Faculty Language Use (3.66) 6.Availability of Scholarships (3.60)
High Priorities By Hearing Status Deaf/HH StudentsHearing Students 1.Faculty Expertise (4.45) 2.Faculty Language Use (4.44) 3.Curriculum/Methodology (4.31) 4.Language Accessibility in Academic Environment (4.27) 5.Availability of Tuition Waivers (4.16) 6.Culturally Friendly (4.08) 7.Availability & Quality of Interpreters (3.96) 8.Use of Technology (3.90) 9.Positive Comments from Current Students and Alums (3.87) 10.Availability of Scholarships (3.83) 11.Level of Academic Rigor (3.70) 12.Location of College, State or Region (3.69) 13.Flexibility in Degree Plans (3.54) 14.Outside Community (3.5) 15.Availability of Early & Frequent Advising (3.53) 1.Faculty Expertise (4.46) 2.Cost of Tuition (4.01) 3.Availability of Scholarships (3.63) 4.Location of College, State or Region (3.62) 5.Availability of and Proximity to Practicum Sites (3.58)
Statistically Significant Differences Diverse/Non-Diverse Availability of Tuition Waivers
Statistical Significant Differences Hearing/Deaf or HH Cost of Tuition Availability of Tuition Waivers Population of Students on Campus Currently Enrolled in the Program that are From the Same Linguistic or Cultural Background as Myself Outside Community has a Thriving Cultural Community Friendly to My Culture Curriculum/Methodology Faculty Language Use Availability and Quality of Interpreters Language Accessibility in the Academic Environment Language Accessibility in the Leisure/Dorm Environment Flexibility in Entrance Requirements Flexibility in Assessment Instruments Availability for Early and Frequent Advising Availability of Free Programs to Support Academic Needs Diversity of Faculty Integration of Technology Positive Comments from Current Students or Alums