Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

Are They Up for the Challenge? Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

Katie Cerrone, PhD The University of Akron Polsky 131H Akron, OH 44325-6105 kc24@uakron.edu (330) 972-8809

Amy Hollingsworth The University of Akron Schrank Hall North 251 Akron, OH 44325-3908 amyholl@uakron.edu (330) 972-5268

Andy Milks The University of Akron Schrank Hall South 221D Akron, OH 44325-6104 amilks@uakron.edu (330) 972-2449

Submitted to The OATYC Journal

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes Introduction There is a big push in higher education institutions to evaluate and improve student motivation, with the goal of improving retention and graduation rates. Research conducted on motivation and attribution theory, to determine how much effort individuals are willing to expend on difficult or challenging endeavors, found that people tend to seek challenging activities (E. L. Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kukla, 1972; Vroom, 1964). This research suggests that students who are engaged in challenging courses are more likely to persevere through adversity, and are thus more likely to continue through college and ultimately earn a degree (E. L. Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). With an increase in the number of students attending college than in previous decades, the issue of student motivation has never been more critical. Enrollment for students under the age of 25 has had the largest growth in recent decades. According to the U.S. Department of

Educations Digest of Education Statistics (2007), enrollment among this population grew by 12 percent in the nineties and was projected to increase an additional 21 percent by 2010. Nearly half of this increase in enrollment was absorbed at community colleges. This means that students who may have, in years past, directly entered the workforce after high school, are now choosing to attend college for various reasons. With the growing desire to make higher education attainable to everyone, colleges are seeking and admitting students who may be underprepared for the content and rigor of university study, with the bulk of these students beginning or completing their degrees at community colleges (Kane & Rouse, 1999). This study will discuss the preferences that community college students have with regards to easy and challenging courses both within and outside of their major.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes Context and Purpose of the Study This research was conducted in response to a previous study on engineering students course preference at a large Midwestern university which reached gender parity. The original study concluded that despite teachers perceptions that students prefer easy classes, many engineering students enjoy challenging classes as long as the challenge appears attainable (Martin, Hands, Lancaster, Trytten, & Murphy, 2008). The current study will examine the course preferences of community college students in various majors at an urban community college, located within a larger university system. The purpose of this study is to investigate community college students preference for challenging classes. The study will look at the preference differences of students from different majors, class designations, and genders. Research Questions The following questions guided the research: Q1: In general, do community college students prefer challenging classes based on the mean Combined Preference Score (CPS) or Preference for Challenging Classes Score (PCCS) Within Major or Preference for Challenging Classes Score (PCCS) Outside of Major? Q2: Is there a difference in the mean student PCCS based on major? Q3: Is there a relationship between PCCS Within Major or PCCS Outside of Major and CPS? Q4: Is there a relationship between student CPS and class designation (freshman, sophomore, etc.)? Q5: Is there a difference between males and females in the preference for challenging classes, based on their CPS?

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes Methods

The instrument used in this study was a survey developed by Hands (2008) and based on the study conducted by Martin, Hands, Lancaster, Trytten, & Murphy (2008). Survey questions (Appendix A) used a Likert scale to determine student preferences for challenging or easy courses within and outside of ones major. The survey inquired about student reactions to hard or easy classes, including boredom in such classes, enjoyment in taking these courses, and the ability to learn when things were challenging versus easy. The survey asked students if they are more likely to take a course from a teacher that they consider to be less challenging. Finally, the survey asked three free response questions regarding course preferences, which were not included in this study. The CPS was calculated from the student responses to the Likert scale questions. There were 18 questions in total, eight in favor of challenging courses (#s 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, 14 and 18), one against (#17), eight in favor of easy courses (#s 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16) and one against (#15). Responses in favor of challenging courses and opposed to easy ones were given a five and questions in favor of easy and opposed to challenging courses scored a one. The sum of the responses to all 18 questions yielded a Combined Preference Score which can range from 18, for students preferring only easy courses, to a 90 for which students preferring only challenging courses. Challenging Classes Scores were calculated for responses pertaining to courses within and outside of a students major. There were three questions in favor of challenging courses within ones major (#1, #5 and #13), one in favor of easy courses within ones major (#9), three in favor of challenging courses outside ones major (#2, #6 and #14), and one in favor of easy courses outside ones major (#10). The responses were summed and yielded the PCCS Within or

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

Outside of Major respectively. These scores ranged from four for students disliking challenging courses to 20 for students preferring challenging courses. Sample This study was based on data gathered from surveys of 205 students at a mid-sized, urban, Midwestern community college in the spring and fall of 2009. Students were surveyed in math and engineering technology courses in which the researchers are the primary instructors, as well as math and social science courses where the researchers did not teach. The courses involved in the study were comprised of both day and evening classes. The diversity of courses and large sample size allows the results of this study to be generalized to similar population. From the 205 survey responses, 27 surveys were incomplete and thus removed from the pool of data, for a total of 178 surveys (103 from spring 2009 and 75 from fall 2009) to be fully analyzed. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics for gender, major, and class designation were initially generated to describe the sample. The mean CPS, PCCS Within Major, and PCCS Outside of Major were calculated to determine if all students prefer challenging or easy classes. The CPS was then tested to determine if the continuous data was normal, and therefore acceptable for parametric tests of inference (Triola, 2009). Since the scores were within an acceptable limit of skewness and kurtosis, the data was subjected to the following parametric tests based on the level of measurement for each independent variable and type of inference being determined (Salkind, 2008). ANOVA was used to determine the differences between scores for each major. Pearsons product-moment correlation was used to find the relationship described in research question

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes three (Salkind, 2008). Spearmans rank coefficient was found for the relationship between CPS and class designation (Salkind, 2008). A t-test for independent samples was used to determine the difference between scores of male and female students (Salkind, 2008). Results

An initial analysis of the descriptive statistics was used to describe the sample for the 178 surveys which had complete data. A complete summary can be found in Table 1. It was found that a majority of students were male, freshman engineering technology majors. Analysis of the descriptive statistics for the three calculated variables is shown in Table 2. If students were neutral about challenging versus easy preferences, an average score of 54 is expected. The calculated mean was 52.90 (SD = 8.79), so no definitive conclusion can be drawn about student preference for challenging courses. When analyzing the data within and outside of the students majors, the range varies from 4 to 20 with an expected mean of 12 for neutral responses. The observed means are both slightly below this level. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn about student preference for challenging courses within or outside of major. Further, the mean score within the students major is higher than outside of the students major and the standard deviation is smaller indicating a greater preference for challenging courses within the students major.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Course Difficulty Preference Survey Participants

Variable Major Allied Health Business Technology Public Service Engineering Technology Other Class designation Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Post-bac Gender Female Male

Frequency

Percentage

27 7 35 74 35

15.2 3.9 19.7 41.6 19.7

59 48 36 30 5

33.1 27.0 20.2 16.9 2.8

65 113

36.5 63.5

Table 2 Results of Descriptive Statistics Variable Combined Preference Score Preference for Challenging Classes Score Within Major Preference for Challenging Classes Score Outside of Major Mean 52.90 11.85 10.11 Range 50 13 13 Std Dev 8.79 2.42 2.72

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

ANOVA was used to determine if there is a difference in preference for challenging class preference means based on the students declared major. The resulting is based on the 4

degrees of freedom for the major category, and the 173 degrees of freedom for the number of students. The results of the ANOVA computations are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Results of ANOVA Test for Observed F Variable Combined Preference Score Preference for Challenging Classes Score Within Major Preference for Challenging Classes Score Outside Major 0.34 0.41 0.55 2.37 2.37 2.37 Critical F Significance 0.85 0.80 0.70

Based on the observed F value, there is no statistically significant difference in the preference for challenging classes based on student major. The post hoc results were not included in a table but verified that there is no difference in the preference for challenging courses based on major. Pearsons correlation was used to compare CPS to PCCS Within Major, and PCCS Outside Major, because all three scores are continuous variables (Salkind, 2008). Table 5.3 in Salkind (2008) was used to determine the correct correlation coefficient given our nominal and ordinal variables. A summary of these coefficients can be found in Table 4.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes Table 4 Correlation Coefficients for Determining Relationship with Each Variable and CPS Correlation Type Pearsons Product-Moment Pearsons Product-Moment Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient 0.805 Statistical Significance 0.01 (2-tailed)

Variable Preference for Challenging Classes Within Major Preference for Challenging Classes Outside of Major Score Class Designation

0.644 0.106

0.01 (2-tailed) 0.160

The Pearson coefficients were both statistically significant for the PCCS Within and Outside of Major Score with p < 0.01. The PCCS Within Major and CPS was r = 0.805 and can be regarded as very strong, according to Salkinds (2008) Table 5.2. The correlation for PCCS Outside Major and CPS was strong at r = 0.644. Therefore, both scores were good predictors of CPS. This may appear to be an obvious conclusion, but it verifies that the PCCS Within Major is a better predictor than PCCS Outside Major for determining the CPS. It was found that PCCS Within Major had R = 0.648 and PCCS Outside of Major had R = 0.415, so almost 65% of the CPS can be explained by the PCCS Within Major (Figure 1a) and that about 41% can be explained by the PCCS Outside of Major (Figure 1b). These two scores must also overlap in some way as they do not explain everything. This is demonstrated in Figure 1c.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

10

65%

41%

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1: Coefficient of Determination for CPS and (a) PCCS Within Major (b) PCCS Outside Major (c) Influence of Both Within and Outside Major Scores Spearmans rank coefficient was used to determine if there was a relationship between class designation and CPS, since both variables can be ordered and ranked (Salkind, 2008). A tied rank analysis was done since some of the scores were the same value (Triola, 2009). The Spearmans rank coefficient was 0.106 with a 2-tailed significance of 0.160. Therefore, class designation and CPS have little to no relationship and a low statistical significance. Table 5 shows that the test fails to reject Levenes null hypothesis, and therefore we can assume that our samples have equal variances and we can use the associated t-scores. Table 5 One Sample t-Test Gender and Combined Preference Score Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Gender Equal Variances Assumed Equal Variances Not Assumed .001 Sig. .976

t-test for Equality of Means Sig. t df (2-tailed) -1.630 -1.597 176 125.411 .105 .113

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes As seen in Table 5, with the df = 176, p < 0.05, the obtained value t = 1.630 is less than the critical value t = 1.645 (Salkind, 2008). This indicates that the null hypothesis is the most

11

likely explanation for any observed differences. In this case, there is no statistically significant difference between males and females in their CPS. Limitations and Implications for Future Research It should be noted that all data came from two instructors courses, although the information was gathered over multiple classes and multiple sections. This might be considered a limitation for the study. Future studies might ask students for their age, in order to view age as a continuous variable of analysis. This would allow for additional correlation and regression calculations. Further research may also wish to examine the mean CPS for each course rather than viewing the scores for the whole group. Since students may have a different preference for challenge based on content and delivery of the course in which they are completing the survey, scores may be better compared for similar courses with similar groups rather than diverse ones. Researchers continuing this work may wish to investigate the differences between community college and university students in CPS. Conclusion With so many students entering college instead of the workplace due to tough economic times, instructors may see their pool of students entering college with a lower level of understanding and motivation than in previous decades. The tendency for instructors may be to "teach to the middle of the pack," but at what point does the course go from challenging to overwhelming? For the adequately prepared students, when does a course go from challenging to too easy and boring? The data in this study does not seem to suggest that students have a preference one way or the other.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes This study analyzed research data collected from community college students to

12

determine their preference for challenging coursework in various categories; specifically student major, class designation, and gender. The research questions initially posed were translated into null and research hypotheses that could be tested using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The research questions can be answered from the obtained statistical tests. In general, it was shown that students have no preference for challenging classes regardless of their chosen major, class designation or gender. However, if a student does prefer challenging courses, the students Preference for Challenging Classes within Major is the best predictor of a students Combined Preference Score for challenging classes so students tend to enjoy the courses within their major the most. This study showed that, on average, students have no preference for challenging coursework based on the CPS, PCCS within Major and PCCS Outside Major. This does not mean students wont be taking any challenging classes, that they will never choose a challenging class, or that they tend to choose easy classes, only that the analysis showed no preference for challenging coursework. Previous research has shown that, when placed in a challenging class, the majority of students end up liking classes that were hard, but not too hard (Martin, Hands, Lancaster, Trytten, & Murphy, 2008). By looking at CPS, PCCS Within Major, and PCCS Outside Major, it is shown that students do not have a preference to choose the challenging classes. The results of the analysis showed there is no statistically significant difference in PCCS based on the students major. Previous studies have shown that engineering students preferred challenging courses, but the results of this study, using multiple majors, did not support previous

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

13

conclusions (Martin, Hands, Lancaster, Trytten, & Murphy, 2008). It was also found that there is no statistically significant relationship between CPSs and class designation. Babad and Tayeb (2003) found a correlation between older and higher-GPA students and the choice of a more intellectually challenging and interesting class. However, the results of this study were inconclusive because specific age was not asked on the survey. Finally, it was shown that there is no statistically significant difference between males and females in their preference for challenging classes. There is a statistically significant relationship between PCCS Outside Major and CPS as well as PCCS Within Major and CPS. With the current push in education to assess student outcomes, understanding the difference between preferences for challenging classes within a students major, and preferences in general education courses is tantamount. Classes outside of a students major contribute to the students critical thinking skills, readiness to be an engaged citizen, retention in their program, and maybe most importantly, their GPA (Nelson Laird & Garver, 2010). If students choose a general education course that is challenging and might pull down their GPA, then they are not going to weigh the choice lightly. When the class is not directly contributing to their cumulative knowledge within their major, easy classes may seem like the obvious choice. If students don't prefer classes that are challenging or easy, shouldn't instructors choose to make their courses challenging? Are there outside pressures, like department heads, colleagues, or even "predetermined acceptable failure rates" that pressure instructors to "dumbdown" their courses? What about the effects of websites like www.ratemyprofessor.com? For an instructor, learning that students felt the course was too hard and hated it, or that the course was boring, may have influences on their pedagogy. Other instructors see class curriculum

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes

14

structure as content-related and student opinion of the level of challenge to be irrelevant. These complex and dichotomous issues need to be addressed in dialogue among higher education professionals.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes References Babad, E., & Tayeb, A. (2003). Experimental analysis of students' course selection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 373-393. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325. Becker, L. Effect Size Calculator. http://www.uccs.edu/~faculty/lbecker/ Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. E. (1999). The community college: Educating students at the margin between college and work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 63-84.

15

Kukla, A. (1972). Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review, 79(6), 454-470. Martin, J. H., Hands, K. B., Lancaster, S. M., Trytten, D. A., & Murphy, T. J. (2008). Hard but not too hard: Challenging courses and engineering students. College Teaching, 52(2), 107113. Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233-256. Nelson Laird, T. F., & Garver, A. K. (2010). The effect of teaching general education courses on deep approaches to learning: How disciplinary context matters. Research in Higher Education, 51(3), 248-265. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9154-7 Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statisitcs for People Who Think They Hate Statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Triola, M. F. (2009). Elementary Statistics, 11th Edition. New York: Pearson.

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Digest of education statistics. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

16

Running Head: Community College Students Preferences for Challenging Classes APPENDIX A CLASS DIFFICULTY PREFERENCE SURVEY Please answer all of the attached questions based on the following scale on the Scantron sheet. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

17

1. Considering classes in my major I prefer a class that challenges me. 2. Considering classes outside of my major I prefer a class that challenges me. 3. I feel that I learn best when I am challenged. 4. I feel that I learn best when a class is easy. 5. Within my major I prefer classes that require minimal work. 6. Outside of my major I prefer classes that require minimal work. 7. I prefer challenging classes more than I used to. 8. I prefer easier classes more than I used to. 9. I purposely choose classes within my major when an easier teacher is teaching. 10. I purposely choose classes outside my major when an easier teacher is teaching. 11. I remember what I learn better when it was challenging for me to learn it. 12. I remember what I learn better when it is easy for me to learn it. 13. I purposely choose classes within my major when a challenging teacher is teaching. 14. I purposely choose classes outside my major when a challenging teacher is teaching. 15. I find easy classes boring. 16. I find easy classes fun. 17. I find challenging classes boring. 18. I find challenging classes fun. 19. I am 1- male 2- female 20. I am a 1- 25 years old or under 2 over 25 years old 21. I am a 1- freshman 2- sophomore 3- junior 4- senior 5E -post graduate 22. I am a Summit College Student 1 Yes 2- No 23. My major is: 1 - Allied Health: (Medical Assisting, Respiratory Care, Surgical Technology, Radiologic Technology) 2 - Business Tech: (Business Management, CIS, Hospitality, Marketing & Sales and Office Admin) 3 - Public Service: (Criminal Justice, Community Service, Early Childhood Dev, Fire Protection, Paralegal Studies, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Services) 4 Engineering: (General Tech, Electronic Eng, Automated Manufacturing Eng, MET, Drafting, CAD, Surveying, Construction Eng, GIS) 5 - Other