The Results Are In!How Collecting Student Engagement Data Can Improve the

First-Year Experience

Focusing on the First Year ConferenceJanuary 14, 2020

Jena Pugh, M.A.Rocquel Waller, M.A.

Session OutcomesParticipants of this conference presentation will:

• Identify two (2) methods to access engagement data in own colleges/units

• Identify two (2) partnerships to enhance first-year student engagement in own colleges/units

• Identify two (2) approaches to target first-year engagement based on college/unit priority student populations (ex. campus change, first-generation, transfer, underrepresented minority)

• Utilizing the above, consider one (1) opportunity to create a cohesive engagement experience in own college/unit

Agenda

• Theory: Tinto and Astin

• Context of Our Office and Roles

• Data: Academic Achievement and Engagement

• Strategies, Partnerships and Practices for Data Collection and Utilization

• Brief Attendee Workshop and Discussion

• Q&A

Who’s in the Room?

• Introductions

• What is your connection to first-year students and student engagement?

• How can this session benefit you most?

Theory: Astin (1999)Theory of Student Involvement

• Core concepts about students:1. Inputs – what students bring with them to college2. Environment – students’ experiences throughout college3. Outcomes – post graduation attitudes, beliefs, characteristics,

knowledge, and values

• Assumptions about involvement*:*Involvement includes academic, co-curricular, extra-curricular1. Requires physical and psychosocial energy2. Continuous involvement (invested energy differs by student)3. Involvement is both qualitative and quantitative4. Student development directly related to quality and quantity of

involvement5. Correlation between student involvement and academic

performance

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.

Theory: Tinto (1993)Three primary reasons students are not retained:

1. Academic challenges2. Inability to resolve educational/career intentions3. Lack of social integration to the institution – includes

peers and faculty

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Our Context: Who Are We?Fisher College of Business• 3rd Largest College• 16% of Undergraduate Students• 7,552 Undergraduates• 69% Domestic Ohio Residents• 11% International Students

Undergraduate Leadership & Engagement Office• Undergraduate Programs• Provides impactful engagement

opportunities • Serving 40+ Student Organizations• Governing Student Organization

(UBC), Council of Presidents (COP)• Business Scholars, Fisher FIRST• Engagement Model:

• Engage-Emerge-Dedicate-Lead• Our Roles: Program Managers

Early Engagement Data Collection Efforts

• Area of growth• Types of data:

• Co-curricular (ex. Scholars), extra-curricular (student organizations), support unit (ex. ULEO, Global Business, Peer Advisors)

• Event/meeting attendance

• Information existed in multiple locations• Even once campus engagement platform (CampusLabs-

FisherU) adopted in 2015, limited student and staff training prevented full utilization

• Limited marketing of platform capabilities to students and partner offices

CampusLabs & Data CollectionCampusLabs• A student engagement platform that manages data:

• Student organizations’ rosters, event promotion/attendance, co-curricular transcripts, specialized curricula and expectations tracking (ex. Scholars programs), student demographics

• Utilizes an electronic check-in system via smart phones or tablets

Data Collection• Collection of data points above cross-referenced with

academic achievement• Determine engagement levels of target populations

Definition: How many events each individual attended

The Data: 2018-2019 Academic Year

• 23,871 event/meeting attendances tracked

• 3,648 unique Fisher student attendees

• 1,011 events; attendance tracked at 644 events

• Engagement data for targeted populations:• First-generation students, Underrepresented minorities,

Transfer students, International students Campus change (new in 2019-2020)

The Data: 2018-2019 Academic Year

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

First Gen URM International Transfer

2018-2019 Engagement Participation Rate

All Fisher Students NFYS

The Data: 2018-2019 Academic Year

748

696

493

0 200 400 600 800

Checkpoint 3 (End of SP 19)

Checkpoint 2 (SP 19)

Checkpoint 1 (AU 18)

NFYS Participation Through First-Year

56%

60%

40%

The Data: 2018-2019 Academic Year

41%

59%

PIC Meetings Through Targeted Outreach

41% of Peer Impact Consultant

meetings (PIC) from Targeted “Non-

Engaged” Populations

70% of PIC Meetings from targeted population after

directed e-mails

The Data: Autumn 2018 vs. Autumn 2019

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Participation Rate of Engaged NFYS

Autumn 2018 Autumn 2019

The Data: GPA vs Engagement Levels

3.6

3.28

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Total Engaged Group

Non-Engaged Group

Average Cumulative NFYS GPA

N=747

N= 451

The Data: GPA vs Engagement Levels

N=62 N= 115 N= 151 N= 419

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

3.7

3.75

3.8

3.85

30 or More Events 10-29 Events 5 to 9 5 or less

Average Cumulative NFYS GPA

Strategies, Partnerships and Practices for Data Collection and UtilizationStrategies• Sharing the importance of data collection and how data supports initiatives with

key stakeholders• Collecting attendance via FisherU• Incentivizing utilization of FisherU for student organizations• Target communication to non-engaged first-year students in first and second

semesters• First-year check-ins: Weeks 4, 8 and end of semester

• Peer Impact Consultants (PICs) - Targeted students meet with peers

Partnerships• Undergraduate Programs: GPA Data• Student Organizations: Adoption of FisherU• College Support Units: Adoption of FisherU

Strategies, Partnerships and Practices for Data Collection and Utilization

Practices: Student Organizations• Early training of student leaders• Training during organization president transitions• Ongoing training and support hours for leaders:

• Peer Impact Consultants• Student organization semester audits• Incentives: Room Reservation Priority-FCOB• Recognition of organization presidents • Streamlining processes and requirements

Practices: Support Units and Staff• Training during staff meetings• Continued communication on how data is utilized to inform

decision-making in ULEO

Business Scholars Program and FisherU Path

• Two year program, focus on first-years

• 50-60 Students• Utilize FisherU to track

learning outcomes through student engagement and program progression

Business Scholars Program and FisherU Path

*Integrated system!

Individual Reflection

• 5 minutes for individual reflection

Group ReflectionWhat will you need to create?• Who are your stakeholders?• How does engagement data collection support your needs?• How can you identify areas of engagement data collection?• How can you collect engagement data?

How will you develop buy-in?• How can you share the importance of your data collection

with stakeholders?• How will you involve students and student leaders in this

initiative?• How can you incentivize data collection?

Our Next Steps

• Continuing the first-year engagement checkpoints

• Expanding engagement checkpoints to transfer and campus change students

• Building the “engaged” student profile

• Additional targeted communication with “low engagement” groups

Questions?