1. Student Engagement: A Phenomenological Study and Follow-up Survey Dan Riordan, PhD Professor of English, UW-Stout Wendy Marson Institutional Planner, UW-Stout Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

2. UW-Stout Menomonie, WI Malcolm Baldrige Award recipient - 2001 8417 students Student Faculty Ratio: 20:1 28 undergraduate majors About 725 undergraduate courses 29 programs 39 undergraduate minors 15 graduate majors 18 programs Colleges: Arts & Science, Human Development, Technology, Engineering and Management School of Education Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

3. Study Design Known as a phenomenological study “Describes the meaning of the lived experiences for several individuals about a concept or the phenomenon” (Creswell) Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

4. Analyzing Phenomenological Data Epoche – to refrain from judgment; to abstain from or stay away from the everyday, ordinary way of perceiving things. Phenomenological Reduction Not only a way of seeing, but a way of listening with a conscious and deliberate intention of opening ourselves to phenomena as phenomena, in their own right. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

5. Analyzing Phenomenological Data Transcripts read multiple times in their entirety by investigator. Comments related to engagement extracted  All comments recorded and given equal weight Comments independently analyzed  BPA office  Faculty member/interviewer  Graduate student with qualitative research experience Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

6. Analyzing Phenomenological Data Criteria for extracted comments Does it contain a moment of the experience that is a necessary and sufficient constituent for understanding it? Is it possible to abstract it and label it? Comments that did not meet the above criteria were eliminated. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

7. Analyzing Phenomenological Data Thematic Development Themes were representative of all participants Common themes compared from all reviewers  BPA office responsible for final selection and description of common themes  At least five responses were needed to identify a primary or secondary theme Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

8. Results Six primary themes were identified Relationships Empowerment Application Passion of the instructor Asking questions Openness to experience Secondary themes were also developed Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

9. Relationships To have your voice heard or to feel like you are having more of a conversation with the professor versus a lecture. I think it helps when the instructor knows your name to help you feel more connected with them. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

10. Empowerment Here’s the subject. You get to choose how you want to go about doing this project. Where the instructor gives you that share in what we’re learning. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

11. Application Where I understand what the instructor is talking about and I’m remembering it to where I can use it later on. I also think that engagement is hands- on, minds-on basically, where you’re given an opportunity to actually practice what you’re taught. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

12. The Passion of the Instructor You can just tell when an instructor really likes what they do. There is so much that goes along with being passionate about what you’re teaching. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

13. Openness to Experience There’s an openness and respect for the environment that comes when people feel respected. An environment has to be set up as such where the players involved feel that their voice matters or that their voice is heard. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

14. Survey Development All statements extracted from interviews sent to members of TLC. Indicated whether or not to use statement Two versions piloted to students (n=122) Original statements reduced to 29 plus two qualitative questions Used four-point scale to indicate level of agreement Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

15. Survey Development Questions were drawn from all six themes identified in the study Grouped into 3 constructs What is the instructor doing? What’s going on in the classroom? What am I doing? Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

19. Survey Results Sent to random sample of 1240 UG full-time students Answered by 640 students (51.6%) Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

20. Results Highest mean ratings: I am more willing to participate in class when I feel my instructor respects me  97% agree/strongly agree  Mean of 3.6 on a 4-point scale I am accountable for my learning  98% agree/strongly agree  Mean of 3.42 on a 4-point scale Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

21. Results Differences by class status: Highest means reported by seniors Lowest means reported by juniors and freshmen 28 of 29 questions saw means rise from freshman to sophomore, fall from sophomore to junior, and rise again from junior to senior. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

22. Results Most frequent responses to question about relationships: Relationships related to group work/partner work Being known/acknowledged by their instructor Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

23. Results Most frequent responses to question about what happens in the classroom to influence engagement: Teaching/learning styles Class content Interactions with instructor Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

24. References Creswell, John W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. (1998). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Knutson, Wendy S. Study of Student Engagement. (2006). Unpublished. Moustakas, Clark. Phenomenological Research Methods. (1994). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Association for Instiutional Research, 2007

25. For further information: http://www.uwstout.edu/tlc/engagem ent.htm knutsonw@uwstout.edu riordand@uwstout.edu Association for Instiutional Research, 2007