1 / 31

Thinking Globally and Acting Locally

Thinking Globally and Acting Locally. Engaging International Students in Community Colleges Deryl Hatch & Abdul Tamimi NISOD Conference, June 2, 2010 Austin, Texas. About your presenters. Deryl Hatch Ph.D. student, UT Austin International comparative higher education

paulos
Télécharger la présentation

Thinking Globally and Acting Locally

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thinking Globally and Acting Locally Engaging International Students in Community Colleges Deryl Hatch & Abdul Tamimi NISOD Conference, June 2, 2010 Austin, Texas

  2. About your presenters • Deryl Hatch • Ph.D. student, UT Austin • International comparative higher education • Research Assistant at the Center for Community College Student Engagement • Ed.M., Educational Technology, Harvard University • B.A., Linguistics, Brigham Young University • Abdul Tamimi • Ph.D. student, UT Austin • Community college leadership • Dean of Ed. Programs and Org. Development at Lone Star College-CyFair • Adjunct faculty ESL • M.A,. Cross Cultural Studies, University of Houston, Clear Lake • B.S., Healthcare Administration , Texas Southern University

  3. Outline of presentation • Brief Overview of Community College Survey for Student Engagement (CCSSE) • Working Definition of International Students, Language Minorities, and Nationals • Overview of CCSSE benchmarks • Engagement benchmark scores of international students • Other Data - Community and Cultural Engagement • Summary - Key Findings

  4. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) • Institutional practices and student behaviors • Research based • Since 2003 (nationally) • Benchmarks (more details later) • Relationship engagement related to student outcomes

  5. What do we know of students’ nationality through CCSSE? Useful Useful Problematic

  6. Language × Nationality

  7. International status, values, perspective • “Nationals”: Majority U.S. residents (*all races) • “Language Minorities”: Bring int’l values (*all races) • “Internationals”: Bring int’l perspective (*all races)

  8. How many international students enrolled at your campus? • Less than 5% • 5 to 15% • More than 15%

  9. Grouping colleges by distribution of internationals and language minorities Percent of Respondents Frequency Decile Groups of Colleges: ~66 Each Percent of National Majority Students (of all races)

  10. Questions • Among the different groups at your campus, which do you think is most engaged? • Why? • Which group benefits the most from having international students at your campus? • What questions do you have?

  11. How do colleges compare in student engagement? Within colleges?

  12. Benchmark: Active and Collaborative Learning • What do you think is happening? • Collaborative learning happens more with people like you • Collaborative learning depends on college/class size • Community resources available to int’l students

  13. Benchmark: Student Effort

  14. Benchmark: Student Effort • Principal cause for such a separation? • Language barriers • Student motivation • Enrollment requirements for immigration status

  15. Benchmark: Academic Challenge

  16. Benchmark: Academic Challenge • Why are there different levels of academic challenge across types of colleges? • College size • Type of international students enrolled • Big city life and complexities vs. small town

  17. Benchmark: Student/Faculty Interaction

  18. Benchmark: Student/Faculty Interaction • International students a bit higher than nationals, but same small difference across the board. Why? • Simply a function of college/class size • Instructors engage all kinds of students equally • International students more often full time, approach faculty more

  19. Benchmark: Support for Learners

  20. Benchmark: Support for Learners • What’s going on here? • At small, rural colleges, int’l services serve fewer students • At large, urban colleges, more community resources; less dependence • Other?

  21. Community and cultural engagement • GLONACAL: • “The simultaneous significance of global, national, and local dimensions and forces” • Marginson and Rhoads (2002) GLONACAL • Global • National • Local

  22. Does experience at this college contribute to understanding of others? GLONACAL • Global Dimension? • National • Local

  23. How often do students have conversations among students of different backgrounds? GLONACAL • Global Dimension? • National • Local

  24. How often do students have conversations among students with divergent views? GLONACAL • Global Dimension? • National • Local

  25. National dimensions of higher education • CCSSE is largely focused at the individual and institutional level. GLONACAL • Global • National Dimension? • Local

  26. How often do students participate in college sponsored community based projects? GLONACAL • Global • National • Local Dimension?

  27. Does experience at this college contribute to involvement in welfare of the community? GLONACAL • Global • National • Local Dimension?

  28. How many hours do students spend in college sponsored activities? GLONACAL • Global • National • Local Dimension?

  29. Key findings of CCSSE benchmarks • CCSSE – “Research shows that the more actively engaged students are — with college faculty and staff, with other students, and with the subject matter — the more likely they are to learn and to achieve their academic goals.” • International students are among the most engaged groups on campus • International students bring different perspectives • National students appear to benefit most from international student enrolment

  30. Q&A and next steps • What will you do with the data and findings? • How are you going to involve your international students to ensure active engagement at your campus? • What do these findings suggest as hypotheses for research?

  31. References • Chaves, C. A. (2003) Student involvement in the community college setting. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, EDO-JC-03-02. • Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281-309. • McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. • Pfaffenroth, S. (1997). Clarifying institutional policy toward international students: A community college self-study model. Princeton, NJ: Mid-Career Fellowship Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409945) • Romano, R.M. (2002). Internationalizing the community college. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. • Szelényi, K., & Chang, J.C. (2002). ERIC Review: Educating immigrants: The community college role. Community College Review, 30(2), 55-73. doi: 10.1177/009155210203000204 • Zhao, C., Kuh, G.D., & Carini, R.M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209-231.

More Related