1. Dissertation Findings
The Effect of Student Engagement on Student Success at a Binational Hispanic Serving Institution
Dissertation Findings
Presented at TACUSPA By
Charles E. Gibbens
October 6, 2009

2. Purpose of Study Research Questions
Determine the correlation between student engagement and student success at UTEP.
Research Questions
Do the NSSE identified educationally purposeful activities predict student success for UTEP students?
Which of the educationally purposeful activities have a greater impact on student success at UTEP?
What is the impact of various socio-economic and background factors as identified by the NSSE survey on student success at UTEP?
What are the institutional factors as identified by the NSSE survey that influence student success at UTEP?
Is there a difference between the freshman students that persist to the next fall semester and those that do not in how they answered the educationally purposeful activities section of the NSSE survey?
Can the factors from the NSSE survey educationally purposeful activities section be arrayed in a theoretically compelling and empirically identifiable means?

3. National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE)
Since 2000
Over 1300 participating institutions
Freshman and senior students at each institution
Self reported data – halo effect – consistent across institutions
Survey Validity
Clearly worded – high face content and validity
Survey Reliability
Correlation of concordance
Matched sample t-tests
Test-retest analysis

4. NSSE Educationally Purposeful Activities
Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions
Made a class presentation
Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in
Come to class without completing readings or assignments
Worked with other students on projects during class
Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments
Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)
Participated in a community-based project (e.g., service learning) as part of a regular course
Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment
Used to communicate with an instructor
Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor
Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor
Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class
Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance
Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations
Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)
Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)
Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own
Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

5. Methodology
Correlation Matrix – Determine the degree of relationship between two variables.
Factor Analysis – Determine which variables tend to clump together.
Path Analysis – Predict cause and effect between variables.

6. Correlation Matrix No variables had a majority of values over 0.05.
No values were greater than 0.09.
No potential problems with singularity.
Variables were determined to correlate fairly well indicating that the survey questions were appropriately related.

7. Factor Analysis Method of dimension reduction N=540
Eigenvalues greater than 1 identified for factor loading.
Identified top 4 values to account for more than 50% of the overall variance.
Scree plot used to identify area of inflexion.

8. Factor Analysis 4 Identified Factor Components
Collaborative Academic Engagement
In-depth Diverse Communications
Academic Work Ethic
Technological Communication

9. Background Characteristics Factor Analysis Components
Path Analysis
Background Characteristics
Factor Analysis Components
Output Variables
First Generation
(Compared to Non First Generation)
Collaborative Academic Engagement
-0.247
GPA
Non First Generation
(Compared to First Generation)
+0.247
Female
(Compared to Male)
-0.257
In-Depth
Diverse
Communications
+0.256
+0.257
Male
(Compared to Female)
+0.114
Low Risk
(Compared to Medium Risk)
Academic Work Ethic
+0.223
Retention
+0.14
Medium Risk
(Compared to Low Risk)
-0.223
+0.221
-0.375
Technological Communication
Low Risk
(Compared to High Risk)
+0.306
+0.375
-0.306
High Risk
(Compared to Low Risk)

10. Findings
First generation students engage in in-depth communications at lower rates than non first generation students.

11. Findings
Female students participate in collaborative academic engagement at lower levels than their male counterparts.

12. Findings
UTEP students identified as low risk engaged in technological communication at higher rates than medium risk students.

13. Findings
UTEP students identified as high risk engaged in academic work ethic at higher rates than low risk students.

14. Findings
Collaborative academic engagement had no correlation with either output variable.

15. Future Research and Professional Practice
Increase demographic information gathered by NSSE
Increase Validation efforts
Examine Hispanic student engagement
Include validation and engagement concepts in departmental vision and mission statements