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