Evaluating Our Impact

1. Evaluating Our Impact The Career Center, Greek Life, ELP and the Student Experience

2. Introduction • This presentation will demonstrate three types of participation data Institutional Research can use to better describe the student experience • Swipecard technology • Electronic participation data • A list of the names of participants

3. Part one: Swipecard Technology Using Career Center data to better understand the “customer.”

4. Data • Career Center tracking data was collected using swipe-card technology from 9/2007 to 5/2008 • After swiping their card, students are asked to provide a reason for their visit • Swipes were linked to CWRUNet IDs unless the student chose to remain anonymous • All data collected by 3rd party and provided to CIR, only

5. Swipe-Card Statistics • During the data-collection period, the swipe-card machine recorded 1193 unique visits • Only undergraduate students who chose to identify themselves were included in this study, leaving 901 unique swipes • These 901 swipes represented 570 students (many students made repeated visits)

6. Why do students visit?

7. What types of students visit?

8. What types of students visit? *Includes double majors

9. When do students visit?

10. Visitors vs. Non-Visitors • Career Center tracking data was linked to transcript data and to data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) • National Survey of Student Engagement: • Questions about engagement inside and outside of the classroom, satisfaction with the college experience • NSSE data was available for those in the 2000-2006 cohorts • All NSSE data collected prior to the Career Center tracking period

11. Visitors vs. Non-Visitors • Compared to non-visitors, those who visited the Career Center*: • Came from a larger high school class • Had higher ACT Composite scores • Had higher SAT Verbal scores • Had higher first semester GPAs • Spent more time working on campus • Had lower satisfaction with academic advising *all differences significant (p<.05)

12. Further Data Exploration • After the card-swipe, students are asked why they are visiting the Career Center • One of the most frequently cited reasons: career counseling • How do those visiting the Career Center for this reason differ from the rest of the campus?

13. Career Counseling • Compared to the rest of the campus, those who visited the Career Center for career counseling*: • Were more likely to be women • As first-years: • Asked fewer questions in class • Were less likely to say Case contributed to their writing ability, their critical thinking ability, their acquisition of a broad general education, and their acquisition of work-related knowledge • Were less satisfied with their educational experience • Students seeking career counseling were not significantly different from non-seekers in measures of GPA or standardized test scores *all differences significant (p<.05)

14. Limitations • The short time-frame for data collection allows for the emergence of patterns, but limits our ability to draw hard conclusions • The majority of the data in this study comes from pre-enrollment or first-year data: • Data begins to describe the types of students seeking assistance from the Career Center • We cannot use this data to determine what affect the Career Center has on students • Future work should take a more intentional approach

15. Part two: Electronic Partcipation Data Using Greek Life data to determine our effect on student learning and development

16. Greek Life • Greek Membership Data from the HARLD database (member/non-member) was provided to IR by Student Affairs • Greek Life data was merged with transcript and NSSE data • Greek membership was linked to senior year data allowing us to see if Greek membership predicts senior year outcomes • Data is from students entering Case from 2000 to 2006.

17. Retention • Students who pledge a Fraternity or Sorority in their first year were 1.86 times less likely to leave Case before their second year than those who did not • Students who become a member of the Greek community while at Case are 1.32 times more likely to graduate within 6 years than those who do not • Membership in the Greek community predicts higher first-year retention and higher graduation rates even after statistically controlling for SAT Math scores, first-year scholarship status, gender, Ohio residency.

18. Academics • Compared to their non-Greek peers, those in Fraternities and Sororities were more likely*, as seniors, to have: • Given presentations in class • Discussed grades with faculty • Worked with faculty members on projects out of class *All differences significant at p<.05

19. Interpersonal Relationships/Personal Development • Compared to their non-Greek peers, those in Fraternities and Sororities were more likely, as seniors, to have: • Worked with peers on schoolwork outside of class • Had discussions with students from different backgrounds • Participated in co-curricular activities • Report greater gains in learning to work effectively with others • Report higher satisfaction in their relationships with other students • Exercise • Say that their time at Case has given them a better understanding of themselves • Volunteer • Tutor other students

20. Part two: A List of Names of Participants Using data from the Emerging Leaders Program determine our effect on student learning and development

21. Emerging Leaders Program • Participation data from the past 3 years was provided to IR • Data consisted only of first and last name, IR then matched names to IDs • Data was then merged with BCSSE, NSSE and transcript data

22. Retention • Students in the ELP program are more than 3.75 times more likely to be retained to their sophomore year than are those who are not • 2.5% of students in ELP leave Case between 1st and 2nd years compared to 9.4% of non-ELP students • Membership in the ELP program predicts higher first-year retention even after statistically controlling for SAT Math scores, first-year scholarship status, gender, Ohio residency.

23. Student Engagement Students in the ELP program were significantly more likely, as first-years to: • Ask questions in class • Interact with people of different backgrounds • Report gains in developing their own personal code of ethics

26. Participation in multiple groups • 28% of ELP students visited a University Circle Institution using the Free Access Program in 2008, compared to 21% of the general population • 54% of ELP students joined a fraternity or sorority, compared to 30% of non-ELP students* *Students entering Case in 2005 an 2006

27. Conclusions • Tracking and participation data can help campus groups learn more about the students they currently serve and those they do not serve • This data can also help campus groups assess the impact they are having on Case students • Within one semester, participation tracking can be used to help to identify the types of students being served • Assessing the impact of a group, activity or program takes a bit more time • Early adopters will see results more quickly!

28. Thank you! Questions? Case IR Fact of the day: www.twitter.com/CaseIR Contact: Tom Geaghan Senior Institutional Research Analyst trg9@case.edu 368-1500