Talk to Me and ENGAGE
Improving Faculty-Student
Interaction from Both Sides
of the Fence
Priscilla P. Nelson
Dept. of Civil Engineering
pnelson@njit.edu
973-596-5864
Two Efforts—Same Goals,
Parallel Approaches
Talk to Me and ENGAGE
• Improve retention
• Increase student success
• Increase faculty-student interaction
What is ENGAGE?
Extension Service Project
 Modeled after the Cooperative Extension Services of
Land Grant Universities.
 Extending a successful product or strategy to a
community who will benefit from the strategy.
• Opportunity to bridge research and practice
pertaining to retention of undergraduate
engineering students
• 30 engineering schools in five years
This material is based on NSF
Grant 0833076.
What is the goal of
ENGAGE?
• The overarching goal of ENGAGE is to increase the
capacity of engineering schools to retain undergraduate
students by facilitating the implementation of three
research-based strategies to improve student day-to-day
classroom and educational experience.
• Focus: 1st and 2nd year engineering students
• ENGAGE strategies improves retention for ALL students
and has an even greater impact on underrepresented
groups.
What strategies is ENGAGE
extending?
• Improve Spatial Visualization Skills (among 1st
year students with weak skills)
• Integrate Everyday Examples that are familiar
to students (in 1st and 2nd year courses)
• Improve and increase level of Faculty-Student
Interaction (among 1st & 2nd year students)
Faculty-Student Interactions Make a
Big Difference in Student Engagement
and Success
Two of the most significant factors affecting
engineering student engagement, retention, and
academic performance are the quality and
extent of student interactions with engineering
faculty. Positive student learning outcomes are
correlated with faculty discussion with students
about the nature of engineering work and
affirmation of students' ability to successfully
perform such work.
Dr. Norman Fortenberry
Executive Director, American Society for Engineering Education
Taking Action in the Classroom:
Talk to Me
and
Faculty-Student
Interactions
Talk to Me is for Students
• Talk to Me piloted in 2010 with
223 students in 5 schools
– Facilitator instructional materials
– Methods of delivery
– Coaching
– Assessment tools
Five Pilot Schools
•
•
•
•
•
Kettering University
University of Louisville
The Ohio State University
University of Texas at Austin
Virginia Tech
Talk To Me materials
• PPT presentation and handout materials
addressing:
– “How and Why to Talk with Your Professors”
– “What to Consider Before You Meet with
Your Professor,” and
– “What to Say When You Meet with Your
Professor”
PPN happy to meet with student groups on
request
Talk to Me Pilot: Key Results
• Did you meet with a professor since the Talk
to Me seminar?
– Females 55% “Yes”
– Males 71% “Yes”
– This finding is statistically significant. (p = .07)
• How satisfied were you with result?
– 66% Very Satisfied
– 34% Somewhat Satisfied
– 0% Disappointed
Research Base –
Faculty-Student Interactions
• In general frequent student interaction
with faculty has positive effects on
student development, involvement and
retention.
• In 1993 Astin & Astin found this was NOT
true in engineering.
• Be mindful that all interactions influence –
why not make them positive?
Research Base –
Faculty-Student Interactions
• Faculty attitudes and
actions affect academic
climate and culture.
• Resultant impact on
student recruitment and
retention
• Nature of faculty student
interactions affects
academic performance
Susan Donohue (2008, NAE
Fellow – now at TCNJ)
What’s the issue for
Faculty-Student Interactions
Why change anything – Why not keep on
doing what we’ve (I’ve) always done?
We can improve on our success - We need
to increase retention and student success.
"If you keep on doing what you've always
done, you'll keep on getting what you've
always got.“
-- W. L. Bateman
FSI - Research Findings:
Faculty-Student Interactions
Influence Progress and Persistence
-American Society for Engineering Education. (2009). Creating a Culture for Scholarly and
Systematic Innovation in Engineering.
-MentorNet. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Need for Mentors as They Progress
Through Academic Studies in Engineering and Science. A report to NSF.
-Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C.M., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S.M., Handelsman, J. (2006) The Merits of
Training Mentors. Science. (311), 473‐474.
Major Barrier: Time
Constraints
• Not as much high-quality interaction
• Lack of time, larger classes
Even Small, Casual
Interactions
Make a Difference!
“I was just about to change my
major. I was getting overwhelmed. My
professor talked to me and reminded me of
the opportunities available to me in the field. I
stuck with it, and I’m glad I did.”
Amelink, C. and Creamer, E. (2010). Gender Differences in Elements of the Undergraduate
Experience that Influence Satisfaction with the Engineering Major and the Intent to Pursue
Engineering as a Career. Journal of Engineering Education. (99)1: 81‐92.
Faculty benefit too!
• Students perceive greater accessibility
• Better learning outcomes from students
• Saves faculty time in office hours
• Stronger course evaluations!
Gall, K., Knight, D. W., Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (2003, Oct). Making the grade
with students: The case for accessibility. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 337343.
Dee, K. C. (2007, Jan). Student Perceptions of High Course Workloads are Not
Associated with Poor Student Evaluations of Instructor Performance. Journal of
Engineering Education, 96, 69-78.
Research Finding 1:
Faculty Approachability Matters
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities:
Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in
Higher Education, 50(5), 437-459.
Research Finding 1:
Faculty Approachability Matters
Conveying approachability can be as
simple as:
• as maintaining eye contact during
lectures
• saying hello in the hallway
• Smiling
• Say yes to invitations from students to go
to university functions (e.g., sports)
Tip for Approachability:
Use Students’ Names
• Print a Sheet with Student Photos and Names
• Use a Seat Assignment
• Table Tents with Names
• Example
– Before: “Remember last time we talked about
building a bridge.”
– After: “Remember last time when Jennifer described
the bridge she built...”
Tip to Improve Approachability:
Use Small Group Office Hours
• Organize students
into small groups
• Rotate small groups
through Office Hours
Research Finding 2:
Giving Effective Feedback
Improves Student Work
- Pappas, E. C., & Hendricks, R. W. (2000). Holistic grading
in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 89(2), 403-408.
- Rae, A. M., Cochrane, D. K. (2008). Listening to students:
How to make written assessment feedback useful. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 217-230.
- Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006, October). Experiences
with formative assessment in engineering classrooms.
Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 325-333.
Tip: Use a Grading Rubric
• Why?
– Reduce questions; improve
perception of fairness; save
time!
– Grading is more specific,
transparent and consistent
– Students learn more
effectively
Sample Rubric
Grade: 12/20
Component A: Computation
Component B: Evidence
Component C: Examples
2 errors (- 6)
complete
3 of 4 included (- 2)
Watch those computation errors.
I am confident you can do higher quality work
next time.
Another idea:
Invite Questions in Writing
• Idea: Invite students to submit questions at
end of Class (no names needed)
Or
• Invite students to submit questions ahead
of time, before class – and then answer
them during lecture
Or
• Use clicker or in-class assessment
Another idea:
Invite assessment
• Conduct a mid-semester course
assessment by the students – get
feedback in time to respond to it
and make improvements during
the semester (rather than wait
until the end).
Research Finding 3:
Faculty Expectations Influence
Student Performance
Encourage students
to succeed
• Students feel more
capable and motivated
to try
• Gives students hope
-Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Giving critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10),
1302-1318.
- Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House: New York.
Sample email
“I noticed from grading the
assignments that many people
skipped one critical step. I’m
posting a link to a website that
might be helpful, so take a look
before Wednesday. This is a step
that trips up a lot people.
Don’t give up.”
Research Finding 4:
Linking Academics to Future Careers
Motivates Students
-Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., and Noeth, R.J. (2004). The Role of Academic and
Non‐Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT, Inc.
- MentorNet. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Need for Mentors as
They Progress Through Academic Studies in Engineering and Science. A report to
the National Science Foundation.
Tip for Academic-Career Link:
Start Class With a 1 Minute Message
• Reach more students
• Students feel encouraged, invited, informed
Tip for Academic-Career Link:
Tell them about you
• Share information about yourself,
and your faculty personal career
goals
• Share your research passions
Examples
• “Volunteering just a couple of hours a week on
research can be a great thing to do. Professor
Brown is looking for help, so stop by office hours to
learn more.”
• “Jessica, one of my former students who now works
for the EPA, says that she uses what she learned in
this class on a regular basis in her work.”
• “I recently learned [at a conference/in the paper/ in
my research] that…”
and
• The “Faculty Connections” project at UT Austin.
Summary: Some of the
Time-effective Tips
1. Smile, keep in eye contact in the class and in the
hallways, walking on sidewalks
2. Use photos , seating chart, or roster to use names
3. Rotate students through small group office hours
4. Use grading rubrics to give effective feedback
5. Invite questions in writing at end of class
6. Encourage students, try to not say “no”
7. Give a 1 minute message that highlights links
between academic learning and careers
Other ideas – what is NJIT’s best practice?
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Amelink, C. and Creamer, E. (2010). Gender Differences in Elements of the Undergraduate
Experience that Influence Satisfaction with the Engineering Major and the Intent to Pursue
Engineering as a Career. Journal of Engineering Education. (99)1: 81‐92.
American Society for Engineering Education. (2009). Creating a Culture for Scholarly and
Systematic Innovation in Engineering.
Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., and Noeth, R.J.(2004). The Role of Academic and
Non‐Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT, Inc.
www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf
MentorNet. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Need for Mentors as They
Progress Through Academic Studies in Engineering and Science. A report to the National
Science Foundation.
www.mentornet.net/documents/about/results/evaluation/.../index.aspx
Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C.M., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S.M., Handelsman, J. (2006) The Merits
of Training Mentors. Science. (311), 473‐474.
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Giving critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10),
1302-1318.
References
7.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House: New
York.
8. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities:
Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status.
Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437-459.
9. Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.
10. Pappas, E. C., & Hendricks, R. W. (2000). Holistic grading in science and engineering.
Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 403-408.
11. Rae, A. M., Cochrane, D. K. (2008). Listening to students: How to make written
assessment feedback useful. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 217-230.
12. Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006, October). Experiences with formative
assessment in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 325333.
Further Reading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Amelink, C. (2009). Overview: Mentoring and Women in Engineering. SWE‐AWE
Applying Research to Practice Series, CASEE Overviews.
Chen, H., Lattuca, L. & Hamilton, E. (2008). Conceptualizing Engagement:
Contributions of Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering. Journal of
Engineering Education. (97)3.
Chesler, N. & Chesler, M. (2002). Gender‐Informed Mentoring Strategies for Women
Engineering Scholars: On Establishing a Caring Community. Journal of Engineering
Education. (91)1.
Goodman, I.F. & Cunningham, M.L. (2002). Final Report of the Women’s Experiences
In College Engineering (WECE) Project.
Metz, S.S., Brainard, S.G., and Litzler, E. (2010). Extending Research Into Practice:
Results From The Project To Assess Climate In Engineering (PACE). Proceedings of
the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Annual Conference, Session
AC 2010‐ 723.
Micomonaco, J. and Stricklen, J. (2010). Toward a Better Understanding of Academic
and Social Integration: A Qualitative Study of Factors Related to Persistence in
Engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010
Annual Conference, Session AC 2010‐1467.
Further Reading
7.
National Academy of Engineering. (2009). New Directions in Engineering Excellence:
Keeping Students Engaged
8. Vogt, C.M. (2008). Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance
in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education. (97)1: 27‐36.
9. Winters, K. Matusovich, H. and Streveler, R. (2010). How Student‐Faculty Interactions
Influence Student Motivations: A Longitudinal Study Using Self‐Determination Theory.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Annual
Conference, Session AC 2010‐1107
10. Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A.
(2008). Persistence, engagement and migration in engineering programs. Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(3), 259-278.
11. Packard, B. W. (2004-2005). Mentoring and retention in college science: Reflections
on the sophomore year. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, &
Practice, 6, 289-300.
12. Packard, B. W., & Hudgings, J. H. (2002). Expanding college women’s perceptions of
physicists’ lives and work through interactions with a physics careers web site. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 32(3), 164-170.
Further Reading
13. Rugutt, J., & Chemosit, C. C. (2009). What motivates students to learn?
Contribution of student-to-student relations, student-faculty interaction, and
critical thinking skills. Educational Research Quarterly, 32(3), 16-28.