Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 13 – uploaded by Jazmin Letamendi, Ph.D., M.S.

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 13. Pie chart, proportion of students enrolled in private and public institutions

Figure 13 Pie chart, proportion of students enrolled in private and public institutions

Related Figures (81)

List of independent variables tested in the study
List of independent variables tested in the study
Figure 1. Distribution of participant's ages 30 years of age, with only a few outliers, students who are 50 and older.
Figure 1. Distribution of participant's ages 30 years of age, with only a few outliers, students who are 50 and older.
Figure 2. Pie chart, respondent's gender identification
Figure 2. Pie chart, respondent's gender identification
Figure 4. Distribution of number of hours reported attending religious services per week
Figure 4. Distribution of number of hours reported attending religious services per week
Race and Ethnicity
Race and Ethnicity
Figure 7. Bar chart, participant racial/ethnic identity some other students identified as Haitian-American, which to them, is not the same as African- Marital Status
Figure 7. Bar chart, participant racial/ethnic identity some other students identified as Haitian-American, which to them, is not the same as African- Marital Status
Figure 8. Bar chart, participant marital status
Figure 8. Bar chart, participant marital status
Figure 9. Pie chart, parental status become involved; unless, campus events satisfy the needs and values of these student-parents.
Figure 9. Pie chart, parental status become involved; unless, campus events satisfy the needs and values of these student-parents.
Figure 10. Bar chart, number of children
Figure 10. Bar chart, number of children
Figure 12. Pie chart, percentage of students enrolled in a fully online program
Figure 12. Pie chart, percentage of students enrolled in a fully online program
Feeling of Connectedness to the Student Body
Feeling of Connectedness to the Student Body
Figure 15. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectednes: to the student body
Figure 15. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectednes: to the student body
Feeling of Connectedness to Academic Advisors
Feeling of Connectedness to Academic Advisors
Figure 17. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to campus faculty sample population experience different relationships with their faculty members.
Figure 17. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to campus faculty sample population experience different relationships with their faculty members.
Figure 18. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to student services staff
Figure 18. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to student services staff
Figure 19. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to other campus administrative staff and office: 10%, 20%, and about 50%.
Figure 19. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectedness to other campus administrative staff and office: 10%, 20%, and about 50%.
with lower GPAs, or if engagement may somehow influence GPA. Hours per Week Dedicated to Studies
with lower GPAs, or if engagement may somehow influence GPA. Hours per Week Dedicated to Studies
Figure 21. Normal distribution, self-reported number of hours per week dedicated to studies university can aim for, in an attempt to get the student to be involved and engaged.
Figure 21. Normal distribution, self-reported number of hours per week dedicated to studies university can aim for, in an attempt to get the student to be involved and engaged.
Figure 22. Normal distribution, self-reported number of hours slept each night on average hours.
Figure 22. Normal distribution, self-reported number of hours slept each night on average hours.
Figure 24. Pie chart, proportion of participants who are members of a fraternity or sorority
Figure 24. Pie chart, proportion of participants who are members of a fraternity or sorority
an active member of a fraternity or sorority, 85.1% were not
an active member of a fraternity or sorority, 85.1% were not
Figure 25. Bar chart, participants' employment status
Figure 25. Bar chart, participants' employment status
Figure 26. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported number of hours worked per week
Figure 26. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported number of hours worked per week
Figure 27. Pie chart, proportion of students who work on campus. off campus and who are not employed
Figure 27. Pie chart, proportion of students who work on campus. off campus and who are not employed
Figure 28. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported number of financial responsibilities
Figure 28. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported number of financial responsibilities
Figure 29. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported percentage of non-loan financial aid covering tuition and other student expenses
Figure 29. Normal distribution, participants' self-reported percentage of non-loan financial aid covering tuition and other student expenses
Interestingly, similar findings arose in the second half of the index. The second part
Interestingly, similar findings arose in the second half of the index. The second part
Figure 31. Transposed box and whisker plot, illustrating the second half of the instrument used to quantify student engagement and involvement
Figure 31. Transposed box and whisker plot, illustrating the second half of the instrument used to quantify student engagement and involvement
Figure 32. Normal distribution, participant's student engagement score, calculated from the 25 questions developed to quantify student engagement and involvement
Figure 32. Normal distribution, participant's student engagement score, calculated from the 25 questions developed to quantify student engagement and involvement
Figure 33. Pie chart, illustrating current housing arrangements
Figure 33. Pie chart, illustrating current housing arrangements
Figure 34. Normal distribution, participants’ self-reported distance (in miles) from parent or closest relatives
Figure 34. Normal distribution, participants’ self-reported distance (in miles) from parent or closest relatives
Figure 35. Normal distribution, participants' self reported distance (in hours driven) from parent or closest relative
Figure 35. Normal distribution, participants' self reported distance (in hours driven) from parent or closest relative
doctorate, and 7.47% of the participants in the sample did not know.
doctorate, and 7.47% of the participants in the sample did not know.
Figure 37. Bar chart, father's highest level of education
Figure 37. Bar chart, father's highest level of education
Coefficients output, illustrating the statistical significance of each feeling of connectedness to campus stakeholders within the regression model
Coefficients output, illustrating the statistical significance of each feeling of connectedness to campus stakeholders within the regression model
Analysis of variance for stepwise regression, feeling of connectedness to campys stakeholders
Analysis of variance for stepwise regression, feeling of connectedness to campys stakeholders
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score
Variables rejected by the stepwise regression; feeling of connectedness to campus stakeholders
Variables rejected by the stepwise regression; feeling of connectedness to campus stakeholders
Figure 38. Scatterplot, showing survey participants! feeling of connectedness to their campus student body in relation to student engagement score and feeling of connectedness has a run of .87; a positive correlation.
Figure 38. Scatterplot, showing survey participants! feeling of connectedness to their campus student body in relation to student engagement score and feeling of connectedness has a run of .87; a positive correlation.
Figure 39. Scatterplot, showing survey participants' feeling of connectedness to academic advisors in relation to student engagement score between the two variables.
Figure 39. Scatterplot, showing survey participants' feeling of connectedness to academic advisors in relation to student engagement score between the two variables.
Figure 40. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ feeling of connectedness to faculty in relation to student engagement scor«
Figure 40. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ feeling of connectedness to faculty in relation to student engagement scor«
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score b. Predictors: (Constant), Percent of Financial Aid (Non-Loan) Covering School, Hours Per Week Dedicated to Studies, Number of Children, Number of Hours Worked Per Week, GPA, Average Hours of Sleep Each Night, Number of Financial Responsibilities Analysis of variance, utilizing implied variuables which influence student engagement
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score b. Predictors: (Constant), Percent of Financial Aid (Non-Loan) Covering School, Hours Per Week Dedicated to Studies, Number of Children, Number of Hours Worked Per Week, GPA, Average Hours of Sleep Each Night, Number of Financial Responsibilities Analysis of variance, utilizing implied variuables which influence student engagement
Coefficients
Coefficients
Excluded Variables* Variables excluded by the stepwise regression; implied variuables which influence student engagement
Excluded Variables* Variables excluded by the stepwise regression; implied variuables which influence student engagement
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score Coefficients output, stepwise regression utilizing implied variuables which influence student engagement
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score Coefficients output, stepwise regression utilizing implied variuables which influence student engagement
Figure 43. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ GPA in relation to student engagement score statistical theory. Therefore, it is a challenge to assert that GPA causes engagement or vice
Figure 43. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ GPA in relation to student engagement score statistical theory. Therefore, it is a challenge to assert that GPA causes engagement or vice
Figure 44. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ hours per week dedicated to their studies, in relation to student engagement score nontraditional students who may take classes online, in the evening or on the weekends.
Figure 44. Scatterplot, showing survey participants’ hours per week dedicated to their studies, in relation to student engagement score nontraditional students who may take classes online, in the evening or on the weekends.
Figure 45. Scatterplot, number of children in relation to student engagement score identify creative ways to engage the students and quantify engagement among that population.
Figure 45. Scatterplot, number of children in relation to student engagement score identify creative ways to engage the students and quantify engagement among that population.
Figure 46. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours slept each night on average, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 46. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours slept each night on average, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 47. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours worked per week on average, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 47. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours worked per week on average, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 48. Scatterplot, self reported number of financial responsibilities in relation to student engagement score Figure 48. Scatterplot, self reported number of financial responsibilities in relation to student engagement score
Figure 48. Scatterplot, self reported number of financial responsibilities in relation to student engagement score Figure 48. Scatterplot, self reported number of financial responsibilities in relation to student engagement score
Figure 49. Scatterplot, self reported percentage of non-loan financial aid covering student related expenses, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 49. Scatterplot, self reported percentage of non-loan financial aid covering student related expenses, in relation to student engagement score
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score The stepwise regression produced two feasible models, the first being student age alone
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score The stepwise regression produced two feasible models, the first being student age alone
Model Summary
Model Summary
.. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score
.. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score
Stepwise regression analysis of variance; utilizing other possible variables which may influence student engagement
Stepwise regression analysis of variance; utilizing other possible variables which may influence student engagement
Excluded Variables* Variables excluded by the stepwise regression, utilizing other possible variables which may influence student engagement
Excluded Variables* Variables excluded by the stepwise regression, utilizing other possible variables which may influence student engagement
Figure 50. Scatterplot, self reported participant age, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 50. Scatterplot, self reported participant age, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 51. Scatterplot, self reported distance to closest relatives or parents (in miles), in relation to student engagement score
Figure 51. Scatterplot, self reported distance to closest relatives or parents (in miles), in relation to student engagement score
Figure 52. Scatterplot, self reported distance to closest relatives or parents (in hours), in relation to student engagement score
Figure 52. Scatterplot, self reported distance to closest relatives or parents (in hours), in relation to student engagement score
Figure 53. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours per week attending religious services, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 53. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours per week attending religious services, in relation to student engagement score
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score b. Predictors: (Constant), Hours Attending Religious Services, Feeling of Connectedness to Faculty, Average Hours of Sleep Each Night, Distance to Parent/Closest Relative in Miles, Percent of Financial Aid (Non-Loan) Covering School, Number of Financial Responsibilities, GPA, Hours Per Week Dedicated to Studies, Feeling of Connectedness to Student Service Staff, Number of Children, Number of Hours Worked Per Week, Feeling of Connectedness to other Administrative Staff & Offices, Feeling of Connectedness to Student Body, Student Age, Feeling of Connectedness to Academic Advisors, Distance to Parent/Closest Relative in Hours Analysis of variance, utilizing all variables observed
a. Dependent Variable: Student Engagement Score b. Predictors: (Constant), Hours Attending Religious Services, Feeling of Connectedness to Faculty, Average Hours of Sleep Each Night, Distance to Parent/Closest Relative in Miles, Percent of Financial Aid (Non-Loan) Covering School, Number of Financial Responsibilities, GPA, Hours Per Week Dedicated to Studies, Feeling of Connectedness to Student Service Staff, Number of Children, Number of Hours Worked Per Week, Feeling of Connectedness to other Administrative Staff & Offices, Feeling of Connectedness to Student Body, Student Age, Feeling of Connectedness to Academic Advisors, Distance to Parent/Closest Relative in Hours Analysis of variance, utilizing all variables observed
Coefficients
Coefficients
Model Summary Stepwise regression model summary; utilizing all variables observed
Model Summary Stepwise regression model summary; utilizing all variables observed
Coefficients
Coefficients
Figure 54. Bar chart, participants' average student engagement score in relation to membership in a social club, honor society or student organization on campus
Figure 54. Bar chart, participants' average student engagement score in relation to membership in a social club, honor society or student organization on campus
Figure 55. Bar chart, participants’ average student engagement score in relation to membership in a fraternity or sorority on campus
Figure 55. Bar chart, participants’ average student engagement score in relation to membership in a fraternity or sorority on campus
Figure 56. Bar chart, employment status in relation to student engagement score engaged group. campus were more engaged than students who worked off campus, which represents the least
Figure 56. Bar chart, employment status in relation to student engagement score engaged group. campus were more engaged than students who worked off campus, which represents the least
Figure 57. Bar chart, on campus employment and off campus employment, in relation to student engagement score
Figure 57. Bar chart, on campus employment and off campus employment, in relation to student engagement score
Related topics:
Community CollegesAssessmentHigher EducationStudent Motivation And EngagementFaculty DevelopmentAssessment in Higher EducationCollege AccessLearning And Teaching In Higher EducationEquity and Social Justice in Higher EducationHigher Education Management
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved