Liz Gross Dissertation Defense
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•511 views
Results of my study to determine if the method college students use to communicate with faculty is related to what topics they discuss and how often they communicate. Official title: An Examination of the Relationship Between the Communication Methods Used in Out-of-Class Student-Faculty Interactions and the Content and Frequency of Those Interactions
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Liz Gross Dissertation Defense
Similar to Liz Gross Dissertation Defense (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Liz Gross Dissertation Defense
- 1. An Examination of the Relationship Between the Communication Methods Used in Out-of-Class Student- Faculty Interactions and the Content and Frequency of Those Interactions Liz Gross
- 2. Students who interact with faculty (Astin, 1993, Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) particularly about specific topics have higher levels of student engagement and are more successful at college.
- 4. Research Question #1 Is there a relationship between the method of communication used in out-of-class student-faculty interactions and the content of those interactions?
- 5. Research Question #2 Is there a relationship between the method of communication used in out-of-class student-faculty interactions and the frequency of those interactions?
- 9. Relationship Between Involvement Behaviors and Academic Outcomes (Astin, 1993)
- 10. Other Literature Themes • Online communication may impact college outcomes differently (Henry, 2010, Laird & Kuh, 2008) • Students use of SNS/online comm increasing (Junco, 2011, Hargittai, 2008, Hargittai & Litt, 2011, Junco, 2011) • Faculty adoption of SNS increasing, opportunity for increasing student interaction (Faculty Focus 2011, Junco, 2014) • Relationship between online/offline
- 11. METHODOLOGY
- 12. Methodology • Explanatory correlational design • Online survey • Quantitative • Variables – Communication method – Frequency of communication (monthly) – Topic of communication
- 13. Development of Survey Instrument
- 14. Development of Survey Instrument Validity
- 15. Development of Survey Instrument Reliability Pilot Study • Sample: 2,000 • Response Rate: 14.75% (n=281) • Cronbach’s alpha: • 7-item content measure = 0.773 • 11-item communication measure = 0.581
- 16. Data Collection Reliability Formal Administration • Sample: 2,000 • Response Rate: 11.3% (n=221) • Combined with pilot sample (n=507) • Cronbach’s alpha: • 7-item content measure = 0.773 • 11-item communication measure = 0.592
- 17. RESULTS
- 18. Results Is there a relationship between the method of communication used in out-of-class student-faculty interactions and the content of those interactions? Yes!
- 19. Results
- 20. Results
- 21. Results
- 22. Results
- 23. Results
- 24. Results
- 25. Results
- 26. Results
- 27. Results
- 29. Results Is there a relationship between the method of communication used in out-of-class student-faculty interactions and the frequency of those interactions? Yes, weak
- 30. Results Communication Method rpb Facebook private 0.273 Text message 0.257 Facebook public 0.234 Voice 0.214 LMS 0.165 Video 0.146 Twitter private 0.144 Twitter public 0.133 IM 0.121 Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient and Variance for Communication Method and Frequency of Student-Faculty Interactions Total Methods rpb = 0.366
- 33. IMPLICATIONS
- 34. Implications for Practice • Faculty should offer multiple methods of communication with students. • Faculty should not discount traditional communication methods (face to face and LMS). • Faculty should not shy away from communicating about non-academic topics.
- 35. Implications for Leadership • Leaders should strive to be multi-modal communicators • Provide or seek training on innovative communication methods
- 36. Implications for Learning • In addition to face to face and LMS, consider utilizing text messaging and Facebook private messages for learning activities. • Support faculty learning regarding new communication methods, especially for out-of-class interactions.
- 37. Implications for Service • Consider differences before making assumptions about an entire group (i.e., college students) • Racial differences of SNS users (Hargittai, 2008) • African American students (4.1%, n=21) did not report using SNS to communicate with faculty • Less likely to use text messaging or interact face-to- face.
- 38. Implications for Research • Explore alignment of student/faculty communication preferences • Examine direct relationship between communication method and content • Gather more data about college student communication with other people groups • Revisit impact of Twitter on student-faculty interactions • Determine if optimal frequency for student- faculty communication exists.
Editor's Notes
- For topics, consulted prior research (Kuh and Pace) and similar surveys (Junco, Heiberger, and Loken). An expert in the field that had published similar research reviewed the survey instrument and provided feedback. After refining the survey instrument, I sought college students who would not be a part of the sample, to take the survey and provide feedback. 20 students took the survey, and their feedback was used to adjust the clarity of the first 3 questions.
- This is compared to 4-6 interactions PER YEAR that have been reported in prior research.
- Social network users reported the highest levels of student-faculty interaction. Twice the average
- Text message, Facebook (public & private), Instant Message, and Video chat had the largest gaps between the number of students that reported having the opportunity to use them, and the desire to use them to communicate with faculty. Face to Face and LMS are related to all 7 topics that positively contribute to student engagement. They appear to be the foundational methods of communication Half of students in this study reported speaking with faculty about campus activities and general social topics.