STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR EDUCATION GROWTH

Presentation by:Diane Issa Nauffal, Ph.D.

Director of Institutional Research and Assessment

Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon Email: diane.nauffal@lau.edu.lb

MENA-AIR 4th Annual Conference – Doha, QatarNovember 8-9, 2012

Outline

• Overview About LAU

• Purpose Of The Study

• Theoretic Framework: Student Learning And Bloom’s Taxonomy

• Findings

Lebanese American University - Overview

• Founded as a women’s college in 1924, the Lebanese American University is a not-for-profit private institution of higher education in Lebanon rooted in the tradition of exemplary education.

• LAU is chartered by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York.

• LAU has a campus in Beirut, Lebanon’s capital and largest population hub, and another about 35 kilometers to the north, in Byblos.

• The two campuses together house seven schools. The schools common to both campuses are: Architecture and Design, Arts and Sciences and Business. The Byblos campus is home to the School of Engineering, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy.

• Student enrollments were 8,273 in 2011 with 7500 undergraduates, 649 graduates and 124 doctoral degree-professional practice.

Lebanese American University - Accreditation• Institutional Accreditation

LAU was granted accreditation by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (CIHE–NEASC) for a five-year period as of November 2009.

• Program Accreditation The Doctor of Pharmacy program is fully accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy

Education (ACPE). This status allows LAU Pharm.D. graduates to sit for the North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX), and practice in most U.S. states. ACPE first accredited the program in 2002. LAU’s Pharm.D. is the only ACPE-accredited program outside the United States.

On October 1, 2011 the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) granted accreditation to all five undergraduate degree programs in the School of Engineering - Civil, Computer, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical. This accreditation action extends retroactively from October 1, 2009.

On October 1, 2011 the Bachelor of Science degree program in computer science was formally accredited by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). This accreditation action extends retroactively from October 1, 2010.

LAU has the only ABET-accredited computer science and industrial engineering programs in the country, and the highest number of ABET-accredited programs of any Lebanese university.

Lebanese American University - Accreditation The School of Business has been granted approval of the Initial Accreditation

Committee at AACSB of the School’s eligibility to begin the Pre-Accreditation Process.

The architecture degree is officially equivalent to the French DEA, which allows our graduates to practice in France and the European Union. The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), USA, has approved the eligibility for candidacy of the professional architecture degree program, Bachelor of Architecture.

The School of Nursing is seeking accreditation from CCNE.

Purpose of the Study

The study seeks to:

• Determine whether students perceived gains in five different mental activities of increasing degree of difficulty as identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy through their coursework engagement as they progressed through the University from a first year student to a senior student.

• Determine whether these perceived gains, if recorded, differed based on the major field of study?

Student Learning

• Student learning is central to all higher education institutions. It is an essential component of every institutions effort to evaluate overall institutional effectiveness.

• Student learning occurs when students make a psychological investment in learning focusing not only on earning grades considered the formal indicator of success, but rather on understanding and assimilating the subject matter (Newman, 1992).

• Student learning and development is enhanced by setting high expectations, providing involving settings, fostering inclusive learning environments and engaging students’ energies (Porter, 2006; Ryan, 2005).

• The more students become engaged in their learning ‘the deeper they come to understand what they are learning and the more adept they become at managing complexity, tolerating ambiguity, and working with people from different backgrounds or with different views’(Kuh, 2009, p.5).

Bloom’s Taxonomy• Bloom’s taxaonomy is a classification of learning objectives set for

students.

• Bloom's taxonomy classifies learning objectives into three domains. These are the: Cognitive: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis

and evaluation. Affective: receiving phenomena, responding to phenomena, valuing,

organization, and internalizing values. Psychomotor: perception, set, guided response, mechanism, complex

overt response, adaptation, and origination.

• Each domain is made up of a series of categories. The categories can be thought of behaviors of degrees of difficulty ranging from the simplest to the most complex.

• Within the domains, learning at the higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels (Olrich, 2004).

Bloom’s taxonomyCognitive Domain

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Based on Bloom (1956)

Bloom’s taxonomyCognitive Domain

Creating

Evaluating

Analyzing

Applying

Understanding

Remembering

Revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain following Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)

Mental Activities• REMEMBERING: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your

courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

• APPLYING: Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

• ANALYZING: Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

• EVALUATING: Making judgments about the value of info., arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

• CREATING: Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE)• The NSSE is among the best known student engagement

surveys.

• Developed primarily for use in the US and Canada it has attracted considerable international interest from countries as Australia, South Africa, China and Korea (NSSE, 2009). Taking into consideration contextual differences these countries have designed modified versions of NSSE.

• Single-institution administrations have been conducted in many other countries such as Lebanon, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

Sample by Class Rank Total Sample = 280 students

Senior

2008 2009 2010 2011

First Year

2006 52 23 35 3

2007 - 45 35 8

2008 - 4 62 13

For example, 52 students who filled the survey as “first year” students in 2006 completed the NSSE survey again as “senior” students in 2008.

Sample by School

Frequency Percent

Architecture & Design 13 5%

Arts 43 15%

Sciences 32 11%

Business 149 53%

Engineering 26 9%

Pharmacy 17 6%

Total 280 100%

These percentages reflect actual student distribution by major degree of study

General Linear Model

First Year Senior Year

Mean SD Mean SD

Memorizing 2.76 .93 2.71 .98

Applying 3.03 .91 3.20 .89

Analyzing 3.07 .86 3.33 .80

Making judgments 2.86 .88 3.06 .93

Synthezing 2.84 .88 3.14 .86

General Linear Model: Repeated Measures

Change from First-Year to Senior ranks

Mean Difference Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for Difference

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Memorizing -0.130 0.176 -0.319 0.059

Analyzing 0.269** 0.002 0.097 0.441

Synthesizing 0.242** 0.005 0.072 0.412

Making judgments 0.142* 0.043 -0.048 0.333

Applying 0.079* 0.046 -0.107 0.265

p<0.05*; p<0.01**; p<0.001***

General Linear Model: Repeated Measures

• The findings indicate that as students progressed in their education from their first year to their senior year they perceived significant increases in learning experiences that require applying, analyzing, evaluating and synthesizing.

• No such gains were perceived with relation to memorizing.

• The interaction effect between academic level (first year/senior year) and field of study however was significant for the memorization cognitive category but not for the other four cognitive categories.

Coursework emphasized: MEMORIZING facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

Coursework emphasized: MEMORIZING facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

There was no difference in coursework emphasis on memorizing as students progressed from the first-year to senior year however a statistically significant difference was found between major field of study.

Coursework emphasized more memorizing for Science majors (Mean=2.911) when compared to Architecture & Design majors(Mean=2.045).

Coursework emphasized more memorizing for Pharmacy majors (Mean=3.531) when compared to Architecture & Design majors(Mean=2.045), Arts (Mean=2.705), Business (Mean=2.691) and Engineering majors(Mean=2.625).

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval for Difference

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Sciences Architecture & Design 0.865* 0.095 1.636

Pharmacy Architecture & Design 1.486*** 0.638 2.334

Pharmacy Arts 0.826** 0.183 1.469

Pharmacy Business 0.840*** 0.265 1.416

Pharmacy Engineering 0.906** 0.208 1.605

Coursework emphasized: APPLYING theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

Coursework emphasized: APPLYING theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

As students progressed from the first-year to the senior year a significant increase was found in course work emphasis on applying information indicating that students experienced more rigor in their senior year.

There was no statistically significant difference between majors in this cognitive category as students progressed from the first year to the senior year, however the trend is one of increase in general.

Students in all majors experienced an increase in opportunities to apply information

Coursework emphasized: ANALYZING the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

Coursework emphasized: ANALYZING the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

As students progressed from the first-year to the senior year a significant increase was found in course work emphasis on analyzing information indicating that students experienced more rigor in their senior year.

There was no statistically significant difference between majors in this cognitive category as students progressed from the first year to the senior year, however the trend is one of increase in general.

Students in all majors experienced an increase in opportunities to analyze information

Coursework emphasized: MAKING JUDGMENTS about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

Coursework emphasized: MAKING JUDGMENTS about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

As students progressed from the first-year to the senior year a significant increase was found in course work emphasis on evaluating information indicating that students experienced more rigor in their senior year.

There was no statistically significant difference between majors in this cognitive category as students progressed from the first year to the senior year, however the trend is one of increase in general.

Students in all majors experienced an increase in opportunities to evaluate and make judgement information

Coursework emphasized: SYNTHESIZING and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

Coursework emphasized: SYNTHESIZING and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

As students progressed from the first-year to the senior year a significant increase was found in course work emphasis on synthesizing or creating information indicating that students experienced more rigor in their senior year.

There was no statistically significant difference between majors in this cognitive category as students progressed from the first year to the senior year, however the trend is one of increase in general.

Students in all majors experienced an increase in opportunities to creating information

Conclusion• Assessment of student engagement may be considered one dimension

of institutional effectiveness.

• The information gained provides insights for decision-makers in planning and policy formulation to channel effort and energy where most needed to enhance institutional effectiveness.

References

• Anderson, L W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman

• Bloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive Domain New York: McKay

• Shavelson, R. and Huang, L., (2003), “Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher education“, Change, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 10-19.

• Porter, S., (2006), “Institutional structures and student engagement”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47, No.

5, pp. 521-558.

• Halawi, L. A., Pires, S. & McCarthy, R.V. (2009), “An evaluation of E-learning on the basis of bloom's taxonomy: An exploratory study.” Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 374-380.

• National Survey of Student Engagement, (2009a), Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement Over Time –Annual results 2009, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

• Newmann, F. (1992) “Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools”, Teacher College Press, pp. 2–3.

• Orlich, et al. (2004) Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction', Houghton Mifflin