NSSE 2013 Engagement Indicators Right To Know Docum… · Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement.

About Your Engagement Indicators ReportTheme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order LearningReflective and Integrative LearningLearning StrategiesQuantitative Reasoning

Collaborative LearningDiscussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty InteractionEffective Teaching Practices

Quality of InteractionsSupportive Environment

Report sections

Overview (p. 3)

Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)

Mean Comparisons

Score Distributions

Summary of Indicator Items

Interpreting comparisons

How Engagement Indicators are computed

Responses to each item in a given EI are displayed for your institution and comparison groups.

Box-and-whisker charts show the variation in scores within your institution and comparison groups.

Straightforward comparisons of average scores between your students and those at comparison group institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes (see below).

Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed difference. An effect size of .2 is generally considered small, .5 medium, and .8 large. Comparisons with an effect size of at least .3 in magnitude (before rounding) are highlighted in the Overview.

EIs vary more among students within an institution than between institutions, like many experiences and outcomes in higher education. As a result, focusing attention on average scores alone amounts to examining the tip of the iceberg. It’s equally important to understand how student engagement varies within your institution. Score distributions indicate how EI scores vary among your students and those in your comparison groups. The Institutional Report Builder and your Major Field Report (both to be released in the fall) offer valuable perspectives on internal variation and help you investigate your students’ engagement in depth.

Each EI is scored on a 60-point scale. To produce an indicator score, the response set for each item is converted to a 60-point scale (e.g., Never = 0; Sometimes = 20; Often = 40; Very often = 60), and the rescaled items are averaged. Thus a score of zero means a student responded at the bottom of the scale for every item in the EI, while a score of 60 indicates responses at the top of the scale on every item.

For more information on EIs and their psychometric properties, refer to the NSSE Web site: nsse.iub.edu

Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-19)

NSSE 2013 Engagement IndicatorsAbout This Report

Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions (p. 15)

Comparisons of your students’ average scores on each EI with those of students at institutions whose average scores were in the top 50% and top 10% of current-year participating institutions.

Displays how average EI scores for your first-year and senior students compare with those of students at your comparison group institutions.

Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers

Experiences with Faculty

Campus Environment

Engagement Indicators (EIs) provide a useful summary of the detailed information contained in your students’ NSSE responses. By combining responses to related NSSE questions, each EI offers valuable information about a distinct aspect of student engagement. Ten indicators, based on three to eight survey questions each (a total of 47 survey questions), are organized into four themes as shown at right.

Detailed views of EI scores within the four themes for your students and those at comparison group institutions. Three views offer varied insights into your EI scores:

2 • NSSE 2013 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2013 Engagement Indicators

Lubbock Christian University

IPEDS: 226383

NSSE 2013 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3

Engagement Indicators: Overview

▲ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p<.05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

△ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p<.05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

-- No significant difference.

▽ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p<.05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

▼ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p<.05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

First-Year (FY) Students

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective and Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

Seniors



Reflective and Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies


Collaborative Learning






--△

----▽

-- --

----

----

▽

--

--

▲ ▲ ▲

----

---- --

▽

--

SACS Participants

▽--

All Participants

--

--

▲Campus Environment

Campus Environment --

Your seniors compared with




--

▽

--

▲ ▲△

▽

------

Learning with Peers

--

--Academic Challenge

--

--

Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement. The ten indicators are organized within four themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment. The tables below compare average scores for your students with those in your comparison groups.

Use the following key:

Learning with Peers

US News Participants SACS Participants

--

All Participants

▽

▽--

Your FY students compared with



------


US News Participants

△


Academic Challenge

----

▽▽--▽

Lubbock Christian UniversityOverview

▼▼


Academic Challenge: First-year students

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning * *

Reflective & Integrative Learning *

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning ** ** **

Score Distributions

Notes: Results weighted by gender and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the summary page are based on effect size and p before rounding.

-.20

40.1 40.5 -.03 40.2 -.01 39.8 .03

33.1 36.5 -.27 35.5 -.19 35.7

-.3421.8 26.5 -.28 27.4 -.34 27.3

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score.


Learning Strategies

Reflective & Integrative Learning

SACS Participants All Participants




Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

LCUEffect size

35.6 39.8 -.29 39.3 -.26 39.1 -.25Mean Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean

Your first-year students compared with

Academic Challenge


0

15

30

45

60

LCU US News Participants SACS Participants All Participants0

15

30

45

60

LCU US News Participants SACS Participants All Participants

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)Summary of Indicator Items

Higher-Order LearningPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized… % % % %

4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations 72 73 74 74

4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts 56 74 73 73

4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 69 73 70 70

4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information 65 71 69 69

Reflective & Integrative LearningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments 45 56 54 56

2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues 39 54 52 53

2c. 45 54 51 51

2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 61 66 63 63

2e. 54 69 66 66

2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 60 68 65 66

2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge 61 78 76 78

Learning StrategiesPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

9a. Identified key information from reading assignments 80 81 81 81

9b. Reviewed your notes after class 66 69 67 66

9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials 55 65 65 64

Quantitative ReasoningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

6a. 34 49 52 51

6b. 18 37 38 38

6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information 22 36 37 37

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE Web site.

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)



LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

Participants

Academic Challenge



Academic Challenge: Seniors

Mean Comparisons



Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies


Score Distributions

39.3 41.5 -.16 41.8 -.18 40.7 -.10

27.1 29.4 -.14 29.9 -.16 29.7 -.15Notes: Results weighted by gender and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the summary page are based on effect size and p before rounding.


-.18 41.3 -.16

38.9 39.3 -.03 38.7 .01 38.9 .00




Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

LCUYour first-year students compared with

Effect size

Academic Challenge

US News Participants SACS Participants All Participants

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Mean MeanEffect size Mean

Effect size Mean

39.1 41.8 -.19 41.6

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)Summary of Indicator Items

Higher-Order LearningPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized… % % % %

4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations 72 80 80 80

4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts 70 78 78 78

4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 74 74 73 72

4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information 69 74 73 73

Reflective & Integrative LearningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments 67 72 71 71

2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues 70 65 64 64

2c. 65 57 55 56

2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 64 68 66 67

2e. 71 72 70 70

2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 72 70 69 70

2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge 87 85 84 84

Learning StrategiesPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

9a. Identified key information from reading assignments 84 85 85 84

9b. Reviewed your notes after class 60 68 68 65

9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials 69 68 69 66

Quantitative ReasoningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

6a. 48 53 55 54

6b. 41 44 45 44

6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information 40 43 44 44


Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments



LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

Participants

Academic Challenge



Learning with Peers: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning * *


Score Distributions


Collaborative LearningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"… % % % %

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 36 45 49 48

1f. Explained course material to one or more students 42 52 57 56

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 44 46 50 48

1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 44 49 49 50

Discussions with Diverse OthersPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own 70 73 74 71

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 76 73 75 73

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 55 68 68 68

8d. People with political views other than your own 60 68 71 70

30.3 -.18 -.30 31.4

41.8 40.8 .06 .02 40.741.5

-.27

.07

31.8



LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

Participants

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others


27.6



Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.


Learning with Peers

US News Participants SACS Participants All ParticipantsEffect sizeMean Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean


0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Learning with Peers: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning ** * **

Discussions with Diverse Others * *

Score Distributions


Collaborative LearningPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"… % % % %

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 28 39 39 38

1f. Explained course material to one or more students 46 57 57 57

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 37 45 46 44

1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 44 64 60 63

Discussions with Diverse OthersPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own 78 74 76 72

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 73 75 77 75

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 52 71 70 70

8d. People with political views other than your own 61 72 73 72

-.20

27.9 32.1 -.29 31.6 -.25





Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

LCUYour seniors compared with

Learning with Peers

Effect sizeMean Mean

Effect size Mean

-.26

38.6 42.2

Effect size Mean

LCUSACS

Participants

31.7

-.22 42.7 -.26 41.8

All Participants

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others




0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Experiences with Faculty: First-year students

Mean Comparisons




Score Distributions


Student-Faculty InteractionPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"… % % % %

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 27 33 33 32

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 28 18 19 18

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 27 25 25 24

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 20 30 29 28

Effective Teaching PracticesPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 80 82 81 82

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 79 81 80 80

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 83 78 78 78

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 73 70 64 65

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 64 67 62 63

22.3 20.0 .15 20.4 .13



42.1

MeanEffect size

Effect size

Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices

Mean



Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.



US News Participants SACS Participants All ParticipantsEffect size Mean


LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

ParticipantsUS News

Participants

20.0 .16Mean

.1341.8 .02 40.4 .13 40.4

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Experiences with Faculty: Seniors

Mean Comparisons



Effective Teaching Practices * * **

Score Distributions


Student-Faculty InteractionPercentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"… % % % %

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 43 42 42 42

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 32 25 26 25

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 39 32 33 32

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 35 33 33 32

Effective Teaching PracticesPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 85 84 84 83

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 85 82 82 82

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 86 81 80 79

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 76 64 63 62

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 69 68 68 68

.27

25.7 23.3 .15 23.4 .14





Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.




Effect size Mean

.16

44.8 41.8

Effect size Mean

LCUSACS

Participants

23.2

.22 41.6 .23 41.1

All Participants

Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices




0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Campus Environment: First-year students

Mean Comparisons




Score Distributions

Summary of Indicator ItemsQuality of Interactions

% % % %

13a. Students 63 60 59 60

13b. Academic advisors 48 52 49 49

13c. Faculty 60 55 50 51

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 54 47 44 44

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 52 47 41 42

Supportive EnvironmentPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 76 79 79 78

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 83 79 79 78

14d. 50 62 60 58

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 78 70 74 72

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 73 71 74 72

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 54 47 47 44

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 67 64 72 68

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues 66 52 57 53

38.4 .04 37.2 .13

44.4 42.5 .15 41.5 .22


LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

Participants



Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.


Campus Environment




Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean

Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment


41.7 .22

39.0 37.3 .12


Percentage rating a 6 or 7 on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent" their interactions with…

Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



Campus Environment: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Quality of Interactions ** *** ***

Supportive Environment *** *** ***

Score Distributions

Summary of Indicator ItemsQuality of Interactions

% % % %13a. Students 71 65 66 65

13b. Academic advisors 74 54 54 53

13c. Faculty 71 65 62 61

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 58 45 44 42

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 63 46 44 43

Supportive EnvironmentPercentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 78 73 74 72

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 76 67 69 67

14d. 62 55 55 52

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 81 65 69 65

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 82 62 65 62

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 55 34 35 32

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 76 55 62 56

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues 68 46 49 45

47.6 43.4 .34 43.1 .37


LCUSACS

ParticipantsAll

Participants



Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.


Campus Environment


Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment



Mean MeanEffect size Mean

Effect size

42.8 .40

40.4 33.4 .47 34.6 .39

MeanEffect size

33.1 .51

Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)


Percentage rating a 6 or 7 on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent" their interactions with…

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60



This page intentionally left blank.


Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions

First-Year Students

✓ ✓Higher-Order Learning ** ***

Reflective and Integrative Learning ** ***

Learning Strategies ✓ *

Quantitative Reasoning *** ***

Collaborative Learning *** ***

Discussions with Diverse Others ✓ ✓

Student-Faculty Interaction ✓ *

Effective Teaching Practices ✓ ✓

Quality of Interactions ✓ ✓Supportive Environment ✓ ✓

Seniors

✓ ✓Higher-Order Learning ** ***

Reflective and Integrative Learning ✓ **

Learning Strategies * ***

Quantitative Reasoning * **

Collaborative Learning *** ***

Discussions with Diverse Others ** ***

Student-Faculty Interaction * ***

Effective Teaching Practices ✓ ✓

Quality of Interactions ✓ ✓Supportive Environment ** ✓ ✓

Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions

NSSE 2013 Top 50% NSSE 2013 Top 10%

NSSE 2013 Top 50% NSSE 2013 Top 10%

Your first-year students compared with


LCU

LCU

Mean35.633.140.121.8

47.640.4

39.327.1

27.938.6

45.3 -.4643.1 -.33

Mean

44.1

29.743.3

43.2

43.541.1

45.4 -.4432.5 -.32

37.5 -.71

Mean Effect size

47.6 .0039.1 .09

45.8 -.46

34.6 -.5545.3 -.04

44.7 -.18

46.3 -.1641.4 -.19

-.54

37.1 -.7045.7 -.26

26.7 -.26

.16

.31

-.24

-.51-.35

-.24.11

Mean Effect size42.7 -.5239.4 -.5044.3 -.29

-.27

-.07-.05

.01-.04

-.32-.18

-.39-.36

41.827.6

-.12-.43

-.50-.09

Mean Effect size

43.234.5

28.8

39.0

Campus Environment

Learning with Peers


25.7

Academic Challenge

39.138.9

45.836.2

31.1

35.0

44.8

The results below compare the engagement of your first-year and senior students with those attending two groups of institutions identified by NSSE for their high average levels of student engagement: (a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all current-year NSSE institutions, and (b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all current-year NSSE institutions.

While the average scores for most institutions are below the mean for the top 50% or top 10%, your institution may show areas of distinction where your average student was as engaged as (or even more engaged than) the typical student at high-performing institutions. A check mark (✓) signifies those comparisons where your average score was at least comparable to that of the high-performing group. However, the absence of a significant difference between your score and that of the high-performing group does not mean that your institution was a member of that group.

It should be noted that most of the variability in student engagement is within, not between, institutions. Even "high-performing" institutions have students with engagement levels below the average for all institutions.



Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers


Theme Engagement Indicator40.937.641.8

Effect size

30.5

23.4

Mean

42.8

44.339.5


Campus Environment

22.342.1

44.4


Notes: Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator, separately for first-year and senior students. Using this method, Engagement Indicator scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors were adjusted toward the mean of all students, while those with smaller standard errors received smaller corrections. As a result, schools with less stable data—even those with high average scores—may not be among the top scorers. NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to release institutional results and our policy against ranking institutions.

Results weighted by gender and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.


Detailed Statistics: First-year students

Mean SD b SEM c 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th

Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Academic ChallengeHigher-Order Learning

LCU (N = 57) 35.6 12.2 1.62 20 30 35 40 60US News Participants 39.8 14.2 .10 15 30 40 50 60 19,485 -4.2 .027 -.294

SACS Participants 39.3 14.2 .06 15 30 40 50 60 51,199 -3.7 .049 -.261All Participants 39.1 13.8 .03 20 30 40 50 60 175,005 -3.5 .054 -.255

Top 50% 40.9 13.6 .05 20 30 40 50 60 79,122 -5.3 .004 -.386Top 10% 42.7 13.7 .10 20 35 40 55 60 18,308 -7.1 .000 -.522

Reflective and Integrative LearningLCU (N = 58) 33.1 12.8 1.69 17 23 31 43 54

US News Participants 36.5 12.9 .09 17 29 37 46 60 20,249 -3.4 .043 -.267SACS Participants 35.5 12.8 .06 17 26 34 43 60 53,425 -2.4 .152 -.188

All Participants 35.7 12.6 .03 17 26 34 43 60 182,228 -2.6 .120 -.204Top 50% 37.6 12.5 .04 17 29 37 46 60 78,392 -4.5 .006 -.359Top 10% 39.4 12.5 .09 20 31 40 49 60 19,529 -6.3 .000 -.503

Learning StrategiesLCU (N = 52) 40.1 15.0 2.08 20 27 40 53 60

US News Participants 40.5 14.3 .11 20 33 40 53 60 18,196 -.4 .852 -.026SACS Participants 40.2 14.2 .07 20 27 40 53 60 47,134 -.1 .961 -.007

All Participants 39.8 14.2 .04 20 27 40 53 60 162,958 .4 .847 .027Top 50% 41.8 14.1 .05 20 33 40 53 60 69,358 -1.7 .388 -.120Top 10% 44.3 14.2 .11 20 33 47 60 60 15,622 -4.2 .035 -.294

Quantitative ReasoningLCU (N = 58) 21.8 13.3 1.75 0 13 20 27 47

US News Participants 26.5 16.8 .12 0 13 27 40 60 57 -4.7 .010 -.279SACS Participants 27.4 16.7 .07 0 20 27 40 60 57 -5.6 .002 -.338

All Participants 27.3 16.4 .04 0 20 27 40 60 57 -5.5 .003 -.335Top 50% 28.8 16.3 .05 0 20 27 40 60 57 -7.0 .000 -.432Top 10% 30.5 16.2 .11 0 20 27 40 60 57 -8.7 .000 -.538

Learning with PeersCollaborative Learning



Top 50% 34.5 13.7 .05 15 25 35 45 60 82,385 -6.8 .000 -.498Top 10% 37.1 13.6 .11 15 25 35 45 60 16,701 -9.5 .000 -.696

Discussions with Diverse OthersLCU (N = 52) 41.8 15.6 2.17 20 25 45 60 60

US News Participants 40.8 16.6 .12 10 30 40 60 60 18,413 1.0 .672 .059SACS Participants 41.5 16.0 .07 15 30 40 60 60 47,735 .3 .898 .018

All Participants 40.7 16.0 .04 15 30 40 55 60 164,882 1.0 .639 .065Top 50% 43.2 15.4 .05 20 35 45 60 60 80,441 -1.4 .510 -.092Top 10% 45.7 15.0 .12 20 40 50 60 60 16,393 -3.9 .062 -.260



Mean statistics Percentiled scores Comparison results

Detailed Statisticsa


Detailed Statistics: First-year students


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g





Experiences with FacultyStudent-Faculty Interaction

LCU (N = 58) 22.3 14.1 1.85 0 15 20 30 50US News Participants 20.0 14.9 .11 0 10 20 30 50 19,912 2.3 .239 .155

SACS Participants 20.4 14.9 .07 0 10 20 30 50 52,230 2.0 .310 .133All Participants 20.0 14.5 .03 0 10 20 30 50 178,486 2.3 .222 .160

Top 50% 23.4 15.0 .06 0 10 20 35 55 56,410 -1.1 .594 -.070Top 10% 26.7 16.4 .18 0 15 25 40 60 58 -4.3 .024 -.263

Effective Teaching PracticesLCU (N = 58) 42.1 13.3 1.75 20 36 40 52 60

US News Participants 41.8 13.8 .10 20 32 40 52 60 20,081 .3 .863 .023SACS Participants 40.4 13.6 .06 20 32 40 52 60 52,592 1.7 .340 .125

All Participants 40.4 13.3 .03 20 32 40 52 60 179,735 1.7 .328 .129Top 50% 42.8 13.3 .05 20 35 44 56 60 63,191 -.7 .706 -.050Top 10% 44.7 13.8 .11 20 36 48 60 60 16,363 -2.5 .165 -.183

Campus EnvironmentQuality of Interactions



Top 50% 44.3 11.6 .05 22 38 46 53 60 53,888 .1 .969 .005Top 10% 46.3 12.0 .10 23 40 48 56 60 14,829 -1.9 .270 -.155

Supportive EnvironmentLCU (N = 47) 39.0 15.0 2.19 15 25 40 48 60

US News Participants 37.3 14.5 .11 13 28 38 48 60 16,965 1.7 .414 .120SACS Participants 38.4 14.0 .07 15 28 40 50 60 43,483 .6 .784 .040

All Participants 37.2 13.9 .04 14 28 38 48 60 152,014 1.8 .371 .131Top 50% 39.5 13.2 .05 18 30 40 50 60 70,868 -.5 .776 -.042Top 10% 41.4 12.9 .11 20 33 43 53 60 14,007 -2.4 .200 -.188

IPEDS: 226383

a. Results weighted by gender and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI is the range of values that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean, equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 * SEM.d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.


Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Academic ChallengeHigher-Order Learning



Top 50% 43.5 13.7 .04 20 35 40 55 60 93,233 -4.4 .002 -.323Top 10% 45.3 13.6 .08 20 40 45 60 60 27,319 -6.2 .000 -.455

Reflective and Integrative LearningLCU (N = 97) 38.9 13.0 1.32 14 31 40 49 60

US News Participants 39.3 13.1 .08 20 31 40 49 60 27,750 -.4 .752 -.032SACS Participants 38.7 13.1 .05 17 29 40 49 60 78,655 .1 .910 .011

All Participants 38.9 13.0 .03 17 29 40 49 60 251,377 .0 .987 -.002Top 50% 41.1 12.6 .04 20 31 40 51 60 92,274 -2.2 .084 -.175Top 10% 43.1 12.6 .08 20 34 43 54 60 24,898 -4.2 .001 -.332

Learning StrategiesLCU (N = 89) 39.3 14.4 1.52 13 27 40 53 60



Quantitative ReasoningLCU (N = 95) 27.1 18.1 1.86 0 13 27 40 60



Learning with PeersCollaborative Learning



Top 50% 35.0 13.8 .04 15 25 35 45 60 104,117 -7.1 .000 -.515Top 10% 37.5 13.5 .11 15 25 40 50 60 15,625 -9.6 .000 -.714

Discussions with Diverse OthersLCU (N = 87) 38.6 16.3 1.74 10 30 40 50 60








Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g





Experiences with FacultyStudent-Faculty Interaction



Top 50% 29.7 16.1 .07 5 20 30 40 60 51,700 -3.9 .017 -.244Top 10% 34.6 16.0 .20 10 20 35 45 60 6,325 -8.8 .000 -.552

Effective Teaching PracticesLCU (N = 97) 44.8 13.8 1.40 24 36 48 60 60

US News Participants 41.8 14.0 .08 16 32 40 52 60 27,527 3.0 .033 .217SACS Participants 41.6 14.0 .05 16 32 40 52 60 77,766 3.3 .022 .233

All Participants 41.1 13.8 .03 16 32 40 52 60 248,826 3.7 .008 .271Top 50% 43.3 13.7 .05 20 36 44 56 60 89,328 1.6 .265 .113Top 10% 45.3 13.5 .11 20 36 48 60 60 15,844 -.5 .727 -.036

Campus EnvironmentQuality of Interactions



Top 50% 45.8 11.5 .04 24 40 48 55 60 73,464 1.8 .132 .160Top 10% 47.6 11.6 .08 24 42 50 58 60 21,204 .0 .973 -.004

Supportive EnvironmentLCU (N = 83) 40.4 13.8 1.51 15 29 40 53 60

US News Participants 33.4 14.7 .09 10 23 33 43 60 24,465 7.0 .000 .474SACS Participants 34.6 14.7 .06 10 25 35 45 60 67,806 5.7 .000 .388

All Participants 33.1 14.4 .03 10 23 33 43 60 219,850 7.3 .000 .506Top 50% 36.2 13.7 .05 13 28 38 45 60 81,855 4.2 .005 .306Top 10% 39.1 13.1 .12 18 30 40 50 60 12,835 1.2 .394 .094

IPEDS: 226383

a. Results weighted by gender and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI is the range of values that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean, equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 * SEM.d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.

NSSE 2013 Engagement Indicators Right To Know Docum… · Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement.

Documents