1 NSSE Columbus State University 2004
Dec 27, 2015
1
NSSE
Columbus State University
2004
2
Program Overview
What do you know about college student engagement?
Why is student engagement important?
What is NSSE?
NSSE 2004
Columbus State University data
2004 Benchmark Report
Using NSSE data
Questions and discussion
3
What Do We Know aboutCollege Student Engagement?
What percentage of our students participate in community service or
volunteer work?First-Year
27%Senior
53%
4
What Do We Know aboutCollege Student Engagement?
What percentage of CSU students spent more than 5 hours per week participating in co-curricular activities?
First-Year18%
Senior13%
5
What Do We Know aboutCollege Student Engagement?
What percentage of CSU students always came to class having completed readings or assignments?
First-Year19%
Senior15%
6
What Really Matters in College Student Engagement
The research is unequivocal: students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are not as involved.
Pascarella & Terenzini. (1991). How college affects students.
7
What is NSSE?(pronounced “nessie”)
Evaluates the extent to which first-year and senior students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development
Supported by grants from Lumina Foundation for Education and the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College
Co-sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning
8
Why A National Survey?
Refocus conversations about undergraduate quality to what matters most
Enhance institutional improvement efforts
Foster comparative and consortium activity
Inform accountability
Provide systematic national data on “good educational practices”
9
Effective Educational Practices
Student-faculty contact Active learning Prompt feedback Time on task High expectations Cooperation among
students Respect for diverse talents
and ways of learning
Chickering and Gamson. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education.
10
NSSE Project Scope
Almost 900 different colleges and universities
50 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada
Data from more than 620,000 students
Institutions include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and all female and all male colleges
Year Colleges/
Universities
2000 276
2001 321
2002 366
2003 437
2004 473
11
Use and Validity of Self-Reports
Validity of Self-Reporting Improves When…
Requested information is known to respondents
Questions are clear and unambiguous
Respondents take questions seriously and thoughtfully
Answering does not threaten, embarrass, or violate privacy or compel a socially desirable response
National assessment experts designed the NSSE survey, The College Student Report,
to meet these conditions
12
What Does The College Student Report
Cover?Student Behaviors in CollegeStudent Behaviors in College
Institutional Actions And RequirementsInstitutional Actions And Requirements
Student Reactions to CollegeStudent Reactions to College
Student BackgroundInformation
Student BackgroundInformation
Student Learning & Development
13
Survey Administration
Administered to random sample of first-year & senior students
Paper & Web-based survey
Flexible to accommodate consortium questions
Multiple follow-ups to increase response rates
14
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) 2004
To date more than 34,000 faculty members at 276 four-year institutions
The FSSE parallels NSSE's survey of undergraduate
students focusing on: Faculty perceptions of how often their
students engage in different activities The importance faculty place on various
areas of learning and development The nature and frequency of interactions
faculty have with students How faculty members organize class time.
Results intended as catalyst for discussions about quality of students' educational experience
15
How Does FSSE Inform What We Know about Student
Engagement?
According to NSSE, what percentage of CSU students spent more than 25 hours per week preparing for class?
First-Year4%
Senior8%
16
How Does FSSE Inform What We Know about Student
Engagement? Approximately two-thirds (65%) of
faculty expect students to spend greater than 25 hours preparing for class
While only about one-fifth (20%) actually think that students spend this amount of time
While only about one of ten (12%) students actually spend this amount of time
17
How Does FSSE Inform What We Know about Student
Engagement?Time Spent Preparing for Class (Per Class Per Week)
Faculty expectation of hours/week
Faculty belief of actual
hours/week
Student reported hours/week from NSSE
Subject Area
Lower Div.
Upper Div.
Lower Div.
Upper Div.
First- Year
Senior
Arts and Humanities 5.6 5.7 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.8
Biological/life sciences 6.2 6.0 2.8 3.4 4.0 3.8
Business 5.7 5.7 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.9
Education 4.4 5.1 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.4
Engineering 6.3 6.6 4.1 4.9 3.9 4.3
Physical Sciences 6.6 6.7 3.4 4.2 3.8 4.0
Professional 5.2 5.7 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.8
Social Sciences 5.2 5.6 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.3
Other 5.0 5.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.0
Totals 5.6 5.7 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4
18
NSSE 2004 Institutionsby Carnegie Type
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Doc/Res-Ext Doc/Res-Int Master's Bac-LA Bac-Gen
Carnegie type
% o
f s
ch
oo
ls All 4-YearSchools
NSSESchools
19
NSSE 2004 RespondentsRace and Ethnicity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
AfricanAmerican,
Black
AmericanIndian
AsianAmerican,
PacificIslander
White,Caucasian
Latino/ a
NSSE RepondentsAll 4-Year Schools
Percentage of Respondents
20
NSSE 2004 Response Rates
CSU’s response rate = 42%
40% overall for all NSSE 2004
institutions
40% for Paper mode institutions
41% for Web-only institutions
Response rates ranged from 9% to 89%
21
NSSE 2004CSU Results
Thinking about your overall experience at this institution, how would you rate the quality of relationships with faculty and administrative personnel and offices?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Remote 2 3 4 5 6 Helpful
Seniors
%
Faculty
Admin Staff
22
Carnegie Group Comparisonwith CSU’s Results
Thinking about your overall experience at this institution, to what extent does the college encourage contact between students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds?
First Year Interaction
0
20
40
Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much
%
CSU
Masters
Senior Interaction
020
4060
Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much
%
CSU
Masters
23
Carnegie Group Comparisonwith CSU’s Results
In thinking about your undergraduate program as a whole, including your major, have you done a culminating senior experience (e.g., senior comprehensive exam, capstone course, thesis or project)?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
No Yes
%
CSU Seniors
Masters Seniors
24
NSSE 2004 Promising Findings
Most students (80%) would attend CSU if they could start over again
Even more students (88%) say they had a good or excellent educational experience
25
NSSE 2004 Disappointing Findings
Almost one-third (29%) of first-year CSU students “never” had writing assignments between 5 and 19 pages
31% of first-year students and 40% of the seniors at CSU prepared between 1 and 5 written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages
34% of first-year students and 38% of the seniors at CSU work more than 20 hours per week
26
Introduction to NSSE Benchmarks
Measures of collegiate quality
Indicators of effective educational practice
Key activities related to desired student learning outcomes
Derived for first-year and senior students
Permit comparisons against peers and national norms
27
2004 NSSE Benchmarks
NSSE Created five clusters or benchmarks of effective educational practice:
1) Level of academic challenge
2) Active and collaborative learning
3) Student-faculty interactions
4) Enriching educational experience
5) Supportive campus environment
28
Level of Academic Challenge
Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality.
Institutions promote high levels of achievement by setting high expectations for student performance.
Activities included (11 items):
Preparing for class
Reading and writing
Using higher-order thinking skills
Institutional environment that emphasizes academic work
29
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Benchmark Scores
CSU 49.4 55.1
ADP 50.2 55.4
Master's 52.6 56.8
National 53.6 57.6
First-Year Senior
Level of Academic Challenge
30
Active and Collaborative Learning Students learn more when they are more intensely
involved in their education.
Collaborating with others prepares students to handle practical, real-world problems.
Activities included (7 items):
Asking questions in class
Making presentations
Working with other students on projects
Discussing ideas from readings or classes with others
31
Active and Collaborative Learning
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Benchmark Scores
CSU 38.6 50.6
ADP 38.8 49.0
Master's 41.6 51.2
National 42.3 51.4
First-Year Senior
32
Student Interactions with Faculty Interacting with experts shows students first-hand
how to think about and solve practical problems.
Teachers become role models and mentors for learning.
Activities included (6 items):
Discussing assignments with a professor
Talking about career plans with faculty member or advisor
Getting prompt feedback on academic performance
Working with a faculty member on a research project
33
Student-Faculty Interaction
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Benchmark Scores
CSU 29.7 38.6
ADP 30.6 40.7
Master's 32.3 42.5
National 33.3 44.0
First-Year Senior
34
Enriching Educational Experiences Learning opportunities that complement the goals
of the academic program.
Provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge.
Activities included (11 items):
Experiencing diversity
Using technology
Participating in internships
Culminating senior experience
35
Enriching Educational Experiences
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Benchmark Scores
CSU 25.5 36.3
ADP 24.4 35.8
Master's 25.8 38.6
National 26.7 40.9
First-Year Senior
36
Supportive Campus Environment Students perform better and are more satisfied at
colleges that are committed to their success.
Does institution cultivate positive working and social relationships among different groups on campus?
Activities included (6 items):
Helping students achieve academically
Helping students cope with non-academic responsibilities
Promoting supportive relationships between students and peers, faculty, and administrative personnel
37
Supportive Campus Environment
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Benchmark Scores
CSU 62.7 57.3
ADP 60.5 57.6
Master's 62.3 59.4
National 62.8 59.7
First-Year Senior
38
CSU National Benchmark Deciles
CSU CSU
Benchmarks CSU I&II Decile CSU I&II Decile
1. Level of Academic Challenge 49.4 52.6 20-30% 55.1 56.8 30-40%
2. Active and Collaborative Learning 38.6 41.6 20-30% 50.6 51.2 40-50%
3. Student-Faculty Interaction 29.7 32.3 20-30% 38.6 42.5 20-30%
4. Enriching Educational Experiences 25.5 25.8 40-50% 36.3 38.6 40-50%
5. Supportive Campus Environment 62.7 62.3 50-60% 57.3 59.4 30-40%
CSU Performance Compared to other Master's I&II Institutions
Benchmark Scores Benchmark Scores
First-Year Students Seniors
39
Institutional Engagement Index
The engagement index represents the degree to which students engage more or less than expected in the five areas of effective educational practice. This report answers three main questions:
1. What would happen to benchmark scores if statistically adjusted for student and institutional characteristics?
2. Is CSU doing better or worse than expected based on student and institutional characteristics?
3. How does the difference in actual and predicted scores compare to other NSSE colleges and universities?
40
CSU Engagement Index
Benchmarks Act. Pred. Resid. SR Act. Pred. Resid. SR
1. Level of Academic Challenge 49.4 50.4 -1.0 -0.4 55.1 54.9 0.2 0.1
2. Active and Collaborative Learning 38.6 40.0 -1.4 -0.4 50.6 49.8 0.9 0.3
3. Student-Faculty Interaction 29.7 31.0 -1.4 -0.4 38.6 40.3 -1.7 -0.5
4. Enriching Educational Experiences 25.5 22.8 2.7 0.9 36.3 32.8 3.5 0.9
5. Supportive Campus Environment 62.7 59.8 2.9 0.8 57.3 57.5 -0.2 -0.1
SR - Standardized Residual or estimate of the degree to which CSU exceeded or fell short of predicted score
Residual - Difference between actual and predicted scores
Act. - Actual benchmark score
Pred. - Predicted (expected) score based on student characteristics & institutional info.
CSU Performance Compared to other Master's I&II Institutions
First-Year Students Seniors
41
CSU Engagement Index
CSU Standardized Residuals
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1. Level of AcademicChallenge
2. Active andCollaborative Learning
3. Student-FacultyInteraction
4. EnrichingEducationalExperiences
5. Supportive CampusEnvironment
Benchmarks
First-year
Senior
42
Using NSSE Data
Discover current levels of engagement (institution, major field, year in school)
Determine if current levels are satisfactory (criterion reference, normative, or peer comparison)
Target areas for improvement
Modify programs and policies accordingly
Teach students what is required to succeed
Monitor student & institutional performance
Areas of Effective
EducationalPractice
Areas for Institutional Improvement
43
Internal Campus Uses
Institutional Improvement
PeerComparison
StudentAffairs
AcademicAdvising
Faculty Development
AcademicAffairs
1st Year & Senior
Experience
LearningCommunities
InstitutionalResearch
Enrollment Management
LearningAssessment
44
External Campus Uses
Assess status vis-à-vis peers, competitors
Identify, develop, market distinctive competencies
Encourage collaboration in consortia
Provide evidence of accountability for good processes
45
Example of Use
Finding: Lack of interaction between faculty and first-year students
Action: More full-time faculty teaching first-year classes instead of relying on large number of part-time faculty
46
Example of Use
Finding: Students not developing writing skills at desired level
Action: Created more opportunities for writing across the curriculum
47
Using NSSE
Participation in accreditation self-study
Alumni reports (magazine, reunion)
Development Office
More extensive peer analysis particularly in the student affairs area
Strategy – Connect to strategic objectives, promote strengths, target areas for improvement
48
How Do I Find Out More?
NSSE Website www.iub.edu/~nsse
CSU Websitefaculty.colstate.edu/program.htm