Figure 11 – uploaded by Jazmin Letamendi, Ph.D., M.S.

Figure 1. Distribution of participant&#39;s ages
 30 years of age, with only a few outliers, students who are 50 and older.

Figure 2. Pie chart, respondent&#39;s gender identification

Figure 4. Distribution of number of hours reported attending
religious services per week

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 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 10. Bar chart, number of children

Figure 12. Pie chart, percentage of students enrolled in a fully
online program

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

Feeling of Connectedness to the Student Body

Figure 15. Normal distribution, self-reported feeling of connectednes:
to the student body

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 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%.

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 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

an active member of a fraternity or sorority, 85.1% were not

Figure 25. Bar chart, participants&#39; employment status

Figure 26. Normal distribution, participants&#39; 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 28. Normal distribution, participants&#39; self-reported number
of financial responsibilities

Figure 29. Normal distribution, participants&#39; 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

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&#39;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 34. Normal distribution, participants’ self-reported distance
(in miles) from parent or closest relatives

Figure 35. Normal distribution, participants&#39; self reported distance
(in hours driven) from parent or closest relative

doctorate, and 7.47% of the participants in the sample did not know.

Figure 37. Bar chart, father&#39;s highest level of education

Figure 39. Scatterplot, showing survey participants&#39; 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 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 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 47. Scatterplot, self reported number of hours worked per week on
average, 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 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 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 54. Bar chart, participants&#39; 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 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