A Study of Student-Faculty Interaction

In the College of Engineering at New Mexico State University

Judith McShannon and Patricia Hynes

New Mexico Space Grant Consortium

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001

jmcshann@pathfinder.nmsu.edu and phynes@pathfinder.nmsu.edu

Abstract

             The problem of low retention rates for engineering students has many causes. Low retention rates for all students in the first two years of an engineering program is a significant problem which must be addressed if universities are going to increase the number and diversity of graduates in engineering programs. Faculty and administrators agree, not all students can, or should, become engineers. But, are the "right" students leaving? Seymour & Hewitt [2] indicated the prevailing reasons students cited for switching out of engineering and science, were poor relationships with faculty and poor teaching. It has also been known for many years, students who leave engineering and students who graduate have an average ACT score of 24. Not all the "leavers" are students who are unable to complete the coursework. While many factors influence a university student's decision to remain or leave a particular field of study, one factor considered a significant influence in student retention is the student’s interactive learning style.

             Interactive style is the way, and with whom, students interact when they learn. For the purpose of this study, interactive style is defined by the person or persons whom the student interacts with when learning. Faculty or other students may be considered interactors with students during their learning process. Interactive learning occurs between students and faculty, among students, and by the student interacting alone with the class materials. Interactive learning can occur both inside and outside of class. Faculty may not understand the importance of interactive learning on a student’s learning process, however, research indicates, faculty can be very influential if a student’s dominant interactive style is faculty oriented. Also, faculty may not be aware, student’s may have a dominant informal interactive style, which indicates they learn best interacting with faculty outside class. Faculty may have anecdotal evidence some students seem to succeed through different styles of interaction, this study is an empirical investigation of student-faculty interaction learning patterns and their effects on achievement and retention.

             This paper presents preliminary observation results of the study of interactive styles in selected engineering classes at New Mexico State University (NMSU) during the 1999 Spring Semester. Data were collected during approximately 30 hours of classroom observations. Observations reveal that while the white-males made up 48% of the students attending the classes observed, they answered 62% of the questions the faculty asked during class, and were the students who asked 76% of the questions of the faculty. The white-female students interacted less during class and interacted more after class. 21% of the interactions with faculty after class and 26% of the interactions with other students after class were made by the white-females, while they made up 15% of the students attending class. The Hispanic-males interacted more with other students, both during class (22%) and after class (26%). Hispanic-females interacted more after class, both with faculty (17%) and with other students (6%). Indian-males interacted with faculty after class (17%) and with other students, both during class (8%) and after class (6%). Indian-females interacted with other students, both during class (8%) and after class (9%).

             While more of the faculty initiated interactions are simple, asking simple questions or giving a “right/wrong” response , more of the student initiated interactions are complex, asking questions that require synthesis, analysis, or application. This supports the supposition that students can and do interact with their faculty at a more complex level than faculty may provide opportunities for.

Introduction

             The success of U.S. engineering education is recognized worldwide. There are 311 engineering schools in the U.S. which are open to academically qualified students from any country, class, gender, race, or ethnic group. Top students from around the world compete to study engineering at U.S. colleges and universities. U.S. engineering education is solidly based on an in-depth study of the natural sciences. It is an education that is highly analytical and theoretical in nature [1].

             Graduate education is particularly strong in many U.S. engineering schools, in part because its research base is, generally speaking, second to none. This research orientation enriches the undergraduate curriculum and influences its character through lectures and textbook development by faculty. Many schools have programs that also provide undergraduates with direct research experience. This orientation toward research and discovery is a major attraction to students [1].

             Despite these strengths, there are areas where engineering education must improve if it is to remain the best in the world and serve the needs of the nation. One area in which change is needed is in the undergraduate engineering program[1]. University administrators and faculty agree, not all students can, or should, become engineers. But, are the “right” students leaving? Are all the “leavers” students who are unable to handle to course work?

             Many factors influence a university student’s decision to remain or leave a particular field of study or the pursuit of higher education entirely. While faculty often cite lack of student preparation and interest as major factors contributing to student’s inability to complete engineering programs, students attribute their decisions to faculty performance [2]. In their study, Seymour and Hewitt observed that students reported poor relationships with faculty and poor teaching as factors contributing to their switching out of engineering programs; in stark contrast to faculty perception.

             Another factor considered to be relevant is learning style [3, 4, 5, 7]. Although, definitions of learning styles vary and the concepts examined by various researchers are diverse, Keffe[6] defined learning style as the cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to their learning environment. The interactive style is defined as the person or persons with whom each student learns. For the purpose of this study, interactive style is defined as the person or persons whom the student interacts with when learning, such as the faculty, other students, or no one.

             The purpose of this study was to examine a model of interactive styles, determine if there are differences by gender (male/female) and ethnicity (white/minority), and look at the effect of the student’s interactive style on retention and achievement. This study sought to provide information about the interactive styles of the undergraduate engineering students currently enrolled at NMSU and determine if there are differences among the learning styles of the various demographic groups, and if these differences effect student success.

New Mexico State University, College of Engineering

             New Mexico State University (NMSU) is a thriving center of higher education dedicated to excellence in research and education. NMSU has been accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools since 1926; and, the College of Engineering is fully accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). NMSU is designated as a Minority Institution and has been placed on the Department of Education’s List of Title III Institutions. NMSU is one of only two institutions classified as a Carnegie Research I Institution and a full member of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). In 1996, minority students represented 40% of the enrollment on NMSU’s main campus. The College of Engineering has a large minority enrollment of approximately 40%, with 33.5% Hispanic, 4.7% American Indian, 1.4% Black, and 18.3% female students enrolled. NMSU’s College of Engineering graduated approximately 50% of all minorities graduates who receive baccalaureate degrees from New Mexico’s institutions in physical science and engineering, and 3% of all minority baccalaureate engineering degrees nationwide [8].

             While minority enrollment is relatively high for NMSU’s College of Engineering, student retention and achievement is still problematic. Could the retention and achievement of these diverse students be affected by their interactive style? If faculty participated in recommended intervention strategies, would student retention and achievement rates improve? Beginning in the spring of 1999, the authors developed a retention study to begin exploring interactive style. The retention study currently underway at NMSU is based on previous research of interactive styles of engineering students in New Mexico [7].

Discussion of Results of Previous Research and Description of Interactive styles Model

             During the spring of 1998, data were collected on the interactive styles of 515 engineering students at the three engineering colleges in New Mexico. The interactive styles were analyzed by exploratory factor analysis using SAS and confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL to explore the interactive style structure and compare the results by gender, ethnicity, and college class . The model suggests there are distinct interactive styles, including;

•           student-faculty-formal (during class)- those students who learn best by interacting with faculty during class

•           student-faculty-informal (outside of class) - those students who learn best by interacting with faculty outside of class (after class, before class, during labs, during office hours, through email or phone)

•           student-student interaction - students who learn best by interacting with other students (both during class and outside of class)

•           student-self - students who learn best by not interacting with the faculty or other students

             It appears from the findings of this study that the students who are most successful, the seniors and whites, have the interactive style which is traditionally used most often in engineering programs, students learning by themselves. While the students who are less likely to be retained in the engineering courses, the freshmen and minority students, have different interactive styles. In addition, while both males and females reported their most successful interactive style was learning by themselves, the males’ second most successful style was learning with other students, while the females’ was learning with the faculty in an informal environment (outside of class) . Many engineering programs are including team work and group work as part of their curriculum, while few are incorporating informal faculty interaction. These factors may be contributing to the retention problem in engineering schools.

             This research suggests that traditional instructional strategies appear to support the students who are traditionally successful in engineering programs, yet may fail to provide the same opportunities to their more diverse students. By using the information learned about interactive styles from this study, faculty can become aware of alternative instructional styles which can encourage the same level of participation and inclusion by these diverse students. These observed differences in interactive styles suggest multiple instructional strategies may be helpful in creating successful learning opportunities for diverse students. Providing opportunities for diverse students to learn in which they perceive supports their learning may influence their success and foster their retention in the engineering programs; faculty can consider the interactive styles of the various student groups when designing engineering programs which will retain diverse populations.

             The observed data suggests faculty could increase certain interactions with students in an effort to meet their interactive style, which may improve their retention. Student-Self, Student-Student, and Student-Faculty-Informal (outside the classroom) interactive styles are ranked among the first three most important interactive styles by all comparison groups. This suggests faculty could increase these learning opportunities for all students. The comparison of the observed models supports the conclusion that there are differences between comparison groups that are important, including:

∙           Student-Faculty-Informal interactive style (outside of class) appears to be more important for females than males, and more important for freshmen students than seniors. Faculty can offer students opportunities to interact with them in an informal environment , in an academically meaningful way, such as being available to answer questions after class, keeping their door open during office hours to show accessability, and speaking to them when meeting them in the hallways or offices.

∙           The Student-Student interactive style appears to be more important for male students than females, more important to seniors than freshmen, and more important for minority students than white students. Faculty can provide cooperative learning exercises during or between classes for these students. For instance, after going over a problem on the board, the faculty can give the students an opportunity to work another problem, or a partial problem, with other students. This gives students an opportunity to process the information the faculty member just gave them and come to an understanding of this new information, before leaving the room where the students and faculty member could help them come to this understanding.

∙           The Student-Faculty Formal interactive style (during class) is also important. It is important to give all students an opportunity to ask and answer questions in class, and not encourage or allow a few people (usually white/male students) to respond to all questions. When the same 2-3 students do all the talking in class, the faculty member can call students by name to answer questions, giving additional students an opportunity to interact with the faculty member during class.

The Student Retention Program at NMSU

             Beginning in the spring of 1999, the authors began observing in selected Civil Engineering (CE), Mechanical Engineering (ME), and Electrical Engineering (EE) classes at NMSU. The authors were observing for specific interaction patterns during class. See Appendix A for data collection sheet of in-class interactions. Faculty also collected data on interactions which took place with students outside of class, during office hours, or when students meet faculty in labs or hallways to discuss course work. Faculty were cautioned, data were to be collected only when faculty and students discussed course related work outside class. See Appendix B for data collection sheet of out-of-class interactions.

             Students enrolled in the selected engineering courses also completed an Interactive style Instrument which determined student interaction style. All students participating in the study signed permission forms and were assured their data would be confidential and given only to their faculty member and the researchers. Faculty noted student interactive style on their grading sheets for use during the semester. Once faculty understand a student’s interactive style, they have the information necessary to provide opportunities to support the interactive style of that student.

Classroom Observation Patterns

             During the 1999 spring semester the authors have collected data in four engineering classes from approximately 30 hours of classroom observations. The data collected during classes included; faculty initiated interaction (faculty questions) with student responses (answers), student initiated interaction (students asked questions of the faculty or made a comment about course material), interactions with the faculty immediately after class, and student to student interaction, during and directly after class. Observation data is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Observed Student-Faculty Interactions During and After Class and Demographic Profile of Respondents

             White-males made up 48% of the students attending the classes observed, they answered 62% of the faculty initiated questions during class, white males asked 76% of the questions of the faculty. The white-female students interacted less during class and interacted more after class; white-females initiated 21% of the interactions with faculty after class and 26% of the interactions with other students after class. White-females made up 15% of the students attending class. Hispanic-males interacted more with other students, both during class (22%) and after class (26%). Hispanic-females interacted more after class, both with faculty (17%) and with other students (6%). Indian-males interacted with faculty after class (17%) and with other students, both during class (8%) and after class (6%). Indian-females interact with other students, both during class (8%) and after class (9%).

             It is also important to note whether the interactions are simple or complex. Simple interactions include asking a simple questions (recall questions), listening to student responses, and giving simple feedback (correct or incorrect response). Complex interactions include asking a single student multiple questions on a topic (probing for deeper understanding), giving analytical feedback (telling what was right or wrong with a response), and asking complex questions (asking questions which require students to reorganize the data dealing with a problem (comprehension), apply or set up a problem (application), diagnose a problem (analysis), plan a design (synthesis), or assess the efficiency of a method (evaluation). Table 2 shows the data of the simple and complex interactions observed.

Table 2

Observed Simple and Complex Interactions and Demographic Profile of Respondents

             While more of the faculty initiated interactions are simple, asking simple questions or giving a “right/wrong” response , more of the student initiated interactions are complex, asking questions that require synthesis, analysis, or application. This observation supports the supposition that students can and do interact with their faculty at a complex level. However, faculty tend to ask simple questions and get simple responses in class. Faculty state they want students to learn complex and analytical thinking skills, yet, when in class, faculty often ask simple questions and move immediately into the next problem. A simple common question often asked by faculty in class is, “Does everyone understand this?” or “Does anyone have any questions on this problem?” A student may ask a complex question regarding the problem, which begins the process of complex and analytical dialog between faculty and student in class.

             It was also observed when students were working with other students on a problem during class, the students who worked together, were more successful in completing the problem and getting the correct solution than students who chose to work alone. When students group solutions on the board and talked about how they solved the problem, this process opened the discussion of alternative ways to solve the problem, inviting acceptance of alternative ways of problem solving. When asked by the authors, students stated working a problem in class with other students helped them better understand how to solve the problem. They also said they did not realize how much they did not understand about the problem when doing homework alone and not going over it in class with other students.

             Once a faculty member has solved a problem or completed a section of lecture, it is common for the faculty to ask if there are questions, and get little or no response. This does not necessarily mean students understand the new material the faculty has presented. Since the students have not started to process the new information yet, they do not know what their questions are yet. Instead of asking, “any questions” or “is everyone OK with the that?” faculty can ask a student to restate what was just gone over in class. This way, students are able to hear the information again. They process the new information when they hear it presented in a different way or by a different person. This process is also effective for showing students where they have gaps in understanding.

Intervention Strategies

             The authors met bi-weekly with the faculty members teaching the four courses in this study. We suggested a number of intervention strategies based on what were observed during class and outside of class. These meetings gave the faculty an opportunity to interact with the authors about the changes they were making while teaching, and gave the authors a way to learn why faculty did or did not do recommended interventions during class. On the whole, faculty were very willing to try new techniques and strategies to include more student more often in class discussions. They were willing to expand their problem solving exercises, and collect data between classes. Most faculty tried all of the strategies listed below.

             One of the simplest intervention strategies recommended was for faculty to learn and use student’s names both in and out of class. Regardless of a student’s dominant interaction style, we recommend all faculty learn and use student names inside and out of class. When faculty addresses by name, students tend to believe they are valued and are less likely to disappear or feel invisible. Students also participate more actively in classes when they are acknowledge by name during class and between classes.

             We suggested faculty call on students by name if they are not participating in class. It is important to give all students the opportunity to ask and answer questions in class, and not encourage or allow the same few students to respond to all questions. It is common for faculty to look at the students who always answer, giving the non-verbal cue that the faculty expects them to answer. When these students do not answer, either because they are not paying attention or they do not know the answer, other students, if given the opportunity, will answer. This is another intervention strategy. We suggest faculty wait for up to five seconds for students to answer questions. Other students do have the answer and can participate in the discussion if they thought they were expected to or invited. Faculty and students admit they allow these verbal students to do the talking for the entire class.

             Most faculty have a favorite teaching position, and rarely move around the class during lecture. Class room observations revealed most interaction between faculty and students occurs between faculty and students in the first two or three rows. When a faculty member lectures or does problems on one side of the room, students tend to sit on that side of the room. We observed if a faculty member moved to the other side of the room, students moved to the other side of the room next period. Faculty who tend to move around the room when lecturing and solving problems give their attention to more students in the class.

             Students to student in class interaction is another simple, quick, and effective strategy to work in class with student’s whose dominant interaction style is student/student. Faculty can give students the opportunity to work a problem or partial problem with other students during class by scheduling a problem for students to solve in class in groups. This gives students an opportunity to process the information the faculty just gave them and come to an understanding of this new information and become active participants in their own learning and get feedback on where they might have gaps in understanding.

             Another strategy to create student interaction in class is to allow students to put solutions to problems on the board, either the solution to the problem just solved as a group, or a solution to a homework problem. Having the opportunity to explain how they solved a problem makes the learning more active and provides multiple opportunities for complex interaction between faculty and students and among students.

             Faculty should stop asking “Are there any questions?” and start asking “Who can explain what we just covered?” This difference in approach gives students the opportunity to hear the information again from another point of view and provides another cognitive process, instead of listening, students must synthesize information just presented, and present the information to others in class. It will become clear to students and faculty where the learning gaps are before students leave class or move on to the next problem. This approach is also useful after faculty have answered a question. After answering the question, faculty can ask the student to repeat back the explanation, this way the faculty can determine if the explanation is clearly understood or if there are more questions about this subject.

             It is also important to be available to interact with students outside of class, during office hours, over the phone, before and after class, and to speak to students in hallways and labs. For those students who have a dominant informal interaction style, knowing a faculty are available and willing to talk to them is important in facilitating student learning.

             Giving students copies of the lecture notes ahead has great educational value and can be done fairly easily. Students can then concentrate on the content of what is being presented in class. They are able to observe and listen and are not entirely caught up in note taking. It is not possible for the brain to process writing, and problem solving at the same time. Either students are taking notes or they are processing information analytically. When students have faculty notes with graphics and equations, they are more able to follow to logical flow of the material. Faculty who hand out lecture notes by class or section, state they tend to stick to their lecture more carefully and find they go through material more quickly. There are fewer questions from students about unclear handwriting, and more complex questions about the notes and why they differ from the text or what relationship the problem has to other work. One of the most important things faculty can do to facilitate interaction during class is to be prepared. Having the lecture notes typed and available to hand-out, prepares the faculty for giving the lecture.

             While it is easy to become discouraged when students do not take advantage of the notes faculty provide, it is important to acknowledge students when you think they have prepared for class. Students must hear, over and over, what to do to prepare for class and improve their grade. When students do not do well in class, many do not understand what they must do to become more successful students. Often faculty tell students to keep up with the homework, however, homework, is only one way for students to interact with the material. Faculty are aware of successful students and different ways students achieve success, however, when asked, faculty do not believe they are a part of student success.

Continuing Research Plans

             Since the semester is not yet over, the authors can not correlate interactive styles with academic success, based on grades earned in the courses. The authors plan to continue collecting classroom observation data on interactive styles and study the relationship of success in engineering programs and students’ interactive styles. This study is an empirical investigation of student-faculty interactive learning patterns and their effects on achievement and retention,.working closely with faculty to become aware of classroom behavior that will support diverse students’ success.

Bibliography

 [1] National Research Council. (1995). Engineering education: Designing an adaptive system. National Academy of Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. National Research Council. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 126)

[2] Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 [3] Haygood, E. L., & Asghar I. N. (1994). A study of the relationship between learning conceptions and learning styles among college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 387 029)

[4] Kariuki, P. N. (1995). The relationship between student and faculty learning style congruency and perceptions of the classroom environment in colleges of teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 393 819)

[5] Price, G. E., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1982). Learning style inventory (LSI)/Productivity environmental preferences survey (PEPS). Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc.

[6] Keefe, J. W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills. Instructional leadership series. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Reston, Va. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 355 634)

[7] McShannon, J.R. & Derlin, R. (1999). Interactive learning styles of undergraduate engineering students in New Mexico: A new model. Paper presented at the annual conference for the American Society of Engineering Education, Dallas, TX, March, 1999.

[8] New Mexico State University. (1999). General information about the college of engineering. Available on-line at http://www.nmsu.edu/~coe/about_coe.html