National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2019: Excerpts … · 953 Danby Road • •Ithaca, NY...

953 Danby Road • Ithaca, NY 14850 • (607) 274-3164 • [email protected]

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2019: Excerpts from the Institutional Report

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is administered to Ithaca College first-years and seniors every three years. The survey is administered and analyzed by the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University, which provides participating institutions with a comprehensive report of their results. Excerpts from that report are provided within this document.

Ithaca College’s Office of Analytics and Institutional Research serves as the project manager for the NSSE. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of AIR, Student Affairs and Campus Life, each of the five schools, and other campus partners, IC’s response rate for the 2019 NSSE increased significantly compared to previous years.

More detailed information and additional analyses are available upon request.

Contents

NSSE 2019 Overview 2-5

NSSE Response Rate FAQ 6-7

NSSE Administration Summary 8-9

A Pocket Guide to Choosing a College (based on IC’s NSSE 2019 results) 10-11

IC’s NSSE 2019 Snapshot 12-15

NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators 16-33

High-Impact Practices 34-38

Selected Comparison Groups 39-44

Survey Instrument 45-61

Topical Module Results: Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity 62-75

Elijah Earl Senior Research Analyst August 2019

NSSE 2019 OVERVIEW 1

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, pronounced “nessie”) collects information from first-year and senior students about the characteristics and quality of their undergraduate experience. Since the inception of the survey, more than 1,600 bachelor’s-granting colleges and universities in the United States and Canada have used it to measure the extent to which students engage in effective educational practices that are empirically linked with learning, personal development, and other desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, and graduation.

NSSE data are used by faculty, administrators, researchers, and others for institutional improvement, public reporting, and related purposes. Launched in 2000 with the support of a generous grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, NSSE has been fully sustained through institutional participation fees since 2002. This document provides an overview of NSSE 2019, including administration details, response rates, participating institutions, and respondent characteristics.

Survey Data and Methodology Approximately 1.5 million first-year and senior students from 531 institutions (504 in the US, 19 in Canada, and 8 in other countries) were invited to participate in NSSE 2019. Of this population, 294,507 students responded to the survey. Less than half (47%) of these were first-year students and 53% were seniors.

NSSE’s sampling methodology calls for either a census of all first-year and senior students or a random selection of an equal number of students from each group, with sample size based on total undergraduate enrollment. Census administration is available only via email recruitment, in which students get a survey invitation and up to four reminders by email. In 2019, all but three participating institutions opted for this method rather than the regular mail option, in which sampled students get up to three messages by post and up to two email reminders.

Unless noted otherwise, the results presented below are from 510 institutions—491 in the US and 19 in Canada—that participated in NSSE 2019. Due to nonstandard details of their participation, 21 institutions are not represented. In these summary tables, as in each Institutional Report 2019, only data for census-administered and randomly sampled students are included. NSSE 2019 U.S. respondents profiled here include 281,136 first-year (46%) and senior (54%) respondents.

U.S. Participating Institutions NSSE 2019 participating institutions and students reflect the diversity of bachelor’s-granting colleges and universities in the US with respect to institution type, public or private control, size, region, and locale (Table 1). A searchable list of participating institutions is on the NSSE website: nsse.indiana.edu/links/participants

Institutional Response Rates The average response rate for U.S. NSSE 2019 institutions was 28%. The highest response rate among U.S. institutions was 67%, and about three out of five achieved a response rate of 25% or higher. Higher average response rates were observed for smaller institutions and for institutions offering incentives (Table 2).

Institutions had the option to use their learning management system or student portal to recruit students. In 2019, 85 U.S. institutions chose this option, and the average share of respondents who accessed the survey this way was 28%.

NSSE 2019 Overview

Mississippi State University

of 75

http://nsse.indiana.edu/links/participants

2 NSSE 2019 OVERVIEW

Table 1

Profile of NSSE 2019 U.S. Institutions and Respondents and Bachelor’s‐Granting U.S. Institutions and Their Students

Institutions (%)

Students

(%)

Institution Characteristics NSSE U.S.a NSSE U.S.a

Carnegie Basic Classificationb

Doctoral Universities (Very high research activity)

6 7 20 27

Doctoral Universities (High research activity)

10 6 18 14

Doctoral/Professional Universities 13 7 17 11 Master's Colleges and Universities (Larger programs)

26 25 25 28

Master's Colleges and Universities (Medium programs)

15 13 8 7

Master's Colleges and Universities (Smaller programs)

6 9 3 3

Baccalaureate Colleges— Arts & Sciences Focus

12 15 5 4

Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields 12 18 4 5

Control

Public 42 35 62 67 Private 58 65 38 33

Undergraduate Enrollment

Fewer than 1,000 12 21 3 2 1,000–2,499 33 32 14 10 2,500–4,999 21 17 14 11 5,000–9,999 17 14 20 18 10,000–19,999 10 9 21 23 20,000 or more 7 6 29 35

Region

New England 8 8 7 6 Mid East 19 18 13 16 Great Lakes 12 14 12 14 Plains 12 10 13 8 Southeast 26 25 25 24 Southwest 11 8 13 12 Rocky Mountains 4 3 8 6 Far West 9 10 8 13 Outlying Areas 1 2 1 2

Locale

City 45 47 56 61 Suburban 24 26 22 23 Town 26 22 20 14 Rural 5 6 2 1

Notes: Percentages are unweighted and based on U.S. postsecondary institutions that award baccalaureate degrees and belong to one of the eight Carnegie classifications in the table. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. a. U.S. percentages are based on the 2018 IPEDS Institutional Characteristics data.

b. For information on the Carnegie Foundation’s 2018 Basic Classification, see carnegieclassifications.iu.edu

Table 2

NSSE 2019 U.S. Participation and Response Rates by Undergraduate Enrollment and Use of Incentives

Institution Characteristics Number of Institutions

Average Institutional

Response Rate (%)

Undergraduate Enrollment 2,500 or fewer 230 33

2,501 to 4,999 101 25

5,000 to 9,999 80 24

10,000 or more 80 21

Use of Incentivesa Offered incentives 315 30

No incentives 176 25

All Institutions 491 28

a. Some institutions used recruitment incentives, such as small gifts or raffles, to encourage students to complete the survey.

Survey Customization Participating institutions may append up to two additional question sets in the form of NSSE Topical Modules or consortium questions (for institutions sharing a common interest and participating as a NSSE consortium) (Table 3). Of the nine modules available in 2019, the most widely adopted was First-Year Experiences and Senior Transitions, followed by Academic Advising (Table 4).

Table 3

Summary of NSSE 2019 Participation in Additional Questions Sets

Selection of Additional Question Sets

Number of Institutions

Percentage of Institutions

None 57 11

One module only 122 23

Two modules 242 46

Consortium items only 16 3

Consortium items plus one module 94 18

Notes: Includes U.S., Canadian, other international institutions, and institutions with nonstandard population files or administrations. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

of 75

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/

NSSE 2019 OVERVIEW 3

Table 4

NSSE 2019 Participation in Topical Modules

Topical Module Number of Institutions

Percentage of Institutions

First‐Year Experiences and Senior Transitions 188 35

Academic Advisinga 178 34

Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity 108 20

Civic Engagement 63 12

Experiences with Writing 48 9

Development of Transferable Skills 45 8

Global Learning 28 5

Learning with Technology 24 5

Experiences with Information Literacy 18 3

Notes: Includes U.S., Canadian, other international institutions, and institutions with nonstandard population files or administrations. Percentages sum to more than 100 because many institutions selected two modules.

a. Includes institutions that administered an experimental set.

U.S. Respondent Profile Table 5 displays selected demographic and enrollment characteristics of NSSE 2019 U.S. respondents alongside all U.S. bachelor’s degree-seeking students for comparison. NSSE reports use weights as appropriate to correct for disproportionate survey response related to institution-reported sex and enrollment status at each institution. Table 6 provides additional details about U.S. respondents.

Canadian Respondent Profile Canadian respondents profiled here include 9,091 students (58% first-year, 42% senior) from 19 institutions in four provinces, including nine institutions in Ontario; two in Alberta; five in British Columbia; and one from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan. Female students and full-time students accounted for about 69% and 90% of Canadian respondents, respectively. The average response rate for Canadian NSSE 2019 institutions was 42%, with the highest response rate being 81%. About three out of four achieved a response rate of 25% or higher.

About 16% of Canadian respondents were at least 24 years old. The majority of students providing ethnocultural information identified as Caucasian or White (67%), while 10% were multiracial, 6% Chinese, 6% South Asian, 3% Black, and less than 3% from each of nine other categories.

Table 5

Characteristics of NSSE 2019 U.S. Respondents and Undergraduate Population at All U.S. Bachelor’s Degree‐Granting Institutions

Student Characteristicsa

NSSE Respondentsb

(%)

U.S. Bachelor's‐Granting

Populationc (%)

Sex

Male 34 45

Female 66 55

Race/Ethnicity

African American/Black 9 12

American Indian/Alaska Native 1 <1

Asian 5 7

Native Hawaiian/other Pac. Isl. <1 <1

Caucasian/White 64 54

Hispanic/Latino 13 16

Multiracial/multiethnic 4 4

Foreign/nonresident 3 5

Enrollment Status

Full‐time 89 84

Not full‐time 11 16

Note: Percentages are unweighted and may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

a. Institution‐reported, using categories provided in IPEDS. NSSE percentages do not include students with “another” or “unknown” sex (0.2% of all respondents) or unknown race/ethnicity (14% of all respondents).

b. The NSSE 2019 sampling frame consists of first‐year and senior undergraduates. Data were provided by participating institutions.

c. U.S. percentages are based on data from the 2018 IPEDS Institutional Characteristics and Enrollment data. Includes all class years.

Table 6

Additional Characteristics of NSSE 2019 U.S. Respondents

Student Characteristics %

At least 24 years old 23

First‐generationa 44

Transfer 30

Expects to complete a master’s degree or higher

59

Living on campusb 39

Taking all classes online 12

Note: Percentages are unweighted. a. No parent (or guardian) holds a bachelor’s degree. b. Campus housing, fraternity, or sorority.

of 75

4 NSSE 2019 OVERVIEW

Center for Postsecondary Research • Indiana University School of Education • 201 North Rose Avenue • Bloomington, IN 47405‐1006

812‐856‐5824 | [email protected] | nsse.indiana.edu | Twitter: @NSSEsurvey, @NSSEinstitute | Facebook: @NSSEsurvey | Blog: NSSEsightings.indiana.edu

Meet the NSSE Team Alexander C. McCormick, NSSE Director

Robert M. Gonyea, Associate Director, Research & Data Analysis

Jillian Kinzie, Associate Director, NSSE Institute

Shimon Sarraf, Assistant Director, NSSE Survey Operations & Project Services

Jennifer Brooks, NSSE Project Services Manager

Thomas F. Nelson Laird, FSSE Principal Investigator, Center for Postsecondary Research Director

Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager, Research Analyst

James S. Cole, BCSSE Project Manager, Research Analyst

Marilyn Gregory, Finance Manager

Barbara Stewart, NSSE Project Coordinator

Katie Noel, Senior Office Administrator

Sarah Martin, Publications Coordinator

Hien Nguyen, Web Developer

NSSE Research Analysts

Brendan J. Dugan Angie L. Miller

Kevin Fosnacht Rick Shoup

NSSE Research Project Associates

Ryan Merckle Justin Paulsen

Defta A. Oktafiga Christen Priddie

NSSE Institute Project Associates

Dajanae Palmer Samantha Silberstein

NSSE Project Associates

Keeley Copridge Gavin Mariano

Kyle T. Fassett Dajanae Palmer

Bridgette Holmes Sylvia Washington

Tom Kirnbauer

FSSE Project Associates

Joe Strickland Kyle T. Fassett

NSSE National Advisory Board Susan A. Ambrose, Senior Vice Chancellor for

Educational Innovation, Professor of Education and History, Northeastern University

James A. Anderson, Chancellor, Fayetteville State University

Jo Michelle Beld (Vice Chair), Vice President for Mission, Professor of Political Science, St. Olaf College

Loren J. Blanchard, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, California State University

Julie Carpenter-Hubin, Assistant Vice President of Institutional Research and Planning, The Ohio State University

Chris Conway, Former Director of Institutional Research and Planning (Retired), Queen’s University

José Luis Cruz, Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost, The City University of New York

Mildred García, President, American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Dennis Groth, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Indiana University Bloomington

John Hayek, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, The Texas State University System

Debra Humphreys, Vice President of Strategic Engagement, Lumina Foundation

Susan Whealler Johnston, President, National Association of College and University Business Officers

Christine M. Keller, Executive Director, Association for Institutional Research

Paul E. Lingenfelter (Chair), President Emeritus, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association

Alexander C. McCormick (Ex Officio), Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Director, National Survey of Student Engagement, Indiana University Bloomington

Elsa M. Núñez, President, Eastern Connecticut State University

Evelyn Waiwaiole (Ex Officio), Executive Director, Center for Community College Student Engagement, The University of Texas at Austin

07−19−19

Suggested citation: National Survey of Student Engagement. (2019). NSSE 2019 overview. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

of 75

http://nsse.indiana.edu/

https://twitter.com/nssesurvey

https://twitter.com/nsseinstitute

https://www.facebook.com/NSSEsurvey/

https://nssesightings.indiana.edu/

1. For our institution to have confidence in our results, is a minimum response rate required? This depends, in part, on the size of your institution, how you plan to use your NSSE results, and your specific campus context. In 2016, institutional response rates for NSSE ranged from 5% to 77%, with an average of 29%.

NSSE research suggests that the total number of respondents is more important than response rate in assuring that first-year student and senior institutional estimates are reliable. A NSSE study (Fosnacht, Sarraf, Howe, & Peck, 2017) found that even relatively low response rates provided reliable institution-level estimates, albeit with greater sampling error and less ability to detect statistically significant differences with comparison institutions.

Depending on institution size, as few as 25 to 75 respondents appeared to provide reliable institution-level estimates for most institutions (Fosnacht et al., 2017). This comports with Pike’s (2012) finding that as few as 50 students could provide dependable group estimates of student engagement. However, institutions analyzing subpopulations of students (for example, using NSSE’s Major Field Report) generally should collect data from as many respondents as possible so that each subgroup is adequately represented.

NSSE also recommends that institutions benchmark their response rates in relation to peer institutions with similar enrollments. Institutions with larger enrollments generally see lower response rates (NSSE, 2016) but they enjoy a higher degree of confidence in estimates due to the sheer number of respondents.

2. Does a low response rate mean our results are biased?A high response rate is no guarantee of data quality, nor does a low response rate automatically mean your results are biased. For results to be biased in any meaningful way, nonrespondents’ level of engagement must be significantly different from that of respondents. In other words, one must take into account both response rate and differences between responders and nonresponders. Although we might feel more confident with a higher response rate, the NSSE study (Fosnacht et al., 2017) found that survey administrations that collected a minimum number of respondents, even with a low response rate, provided unbiased estimates for the majority of institutions. Many prominent survey researchers have also questioned the widely held assumption that low response rates are associated with biased results (Groves, 2006; Massey & Tourangeau, 2013; Peytchev, 2013). For additional information related to this question, see the answer to the final question below about respondent representativeness.

3. While reviewing our NSSE results, should we consider data quality indicators besides response rate? Would another indicator provide a better measure of survey data quality?Response rate, respondent count, and sampling error are all included in your NSSE reports, providing several components of data quality. Results from NSSE’s study on response rates (Fosnacht et al., 2017) indicate that respondent count has particular value and may be more useful for determining the reliability of NSSE estimates than other measures.

NSSE Response Rate FAQ

While viewing and interpreting your institution’s survey results, you may have questions about your response rate and what it means for data quality. In this document, our answers to several commonly asked questions about this issue are informed by current survey methodology research and specific analyses of NSSE data from hundreds of participating institutions.

of 75

http://muse.jhu.edu/article/640611



http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/2016/NSSE_2016_Response_Rate_Summary_table.pdf

http://nsse.iub.edu/institutional_report/NSSE%202012%20Response%20Rate%20Summary%20table.pdf

Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University School of Education1900 East Tenth Street, Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406-7512

Phone: 812-856-5824 Fax: 812-856-5150 Email: [email protected]: nsse.indiana.edu

If institutions discover disproportionate representation and differences in engagement according to particular student characteristics, developing weights to address these imbalances may be warranted.

ReferencesFosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., & Peck, L. K. (2017, Winter). How important are high response rates for college surveys? The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 245–265.

Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.

Massey, D. S., & Tourangeau, R. (2013). Where do we go from here? Nonresponse and social measurement. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(2013 January), 222–236.

National Research Council. (2013). Nonresponse in social science surveys: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2016). NSSE 2016 U.S. response rates by institutional characteristics. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research.

Peytchev, A. (2013). Consequences of survey nonresponse. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(2013 January), 88–111.

Pike, G. R. (2012). NSSE benchmarks and institutional outcomes: A note on the importance of considering the intended uses of a measure in validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 149–170.

2 • NSSE Response Rate FAQ

Although other data quality indicators exist, because response rate is a key consideration for many campus constituents, it cannot be ignored—even when other indicators suggest the data are valid and reliable. A low response rate will influence how results are received, regardless of how many individuals responded or what the sampling error is. For this reason, maximizing response remains a worthy goal, and, importantly, helps ensure sufficient data for analyzing campus subgroups and running statistical analyses.Information about respondent representativeness across key student subpopulations is also important to assessing data quality. In addition to using the information provided in NSSE reports, we urge users to conduct representativeness studies by comparing the characteristics of NSSE respondents and nonrespondents.

4. Is ours the only institution struggling with a low or declining survey response rate?Researchers across a number of social science disciplines in the US and abroad have witnessed a steady erosion in survey response rates over time (National Research Council, 2013). Higher education researchers, NSSE included, also have seen a general decline in survey participation.

5. Should we worry that certain campus subpopulations did not participate in the survey in proportion to their overall numbers?We generally do not find large differences between different types of students on NSSE measures (academic major being an exception), so disproportionate representation should not be particularly troublesome in accurately assessing engagement levels. For example, if an institution’s adult learners were underrepresented among NSSE respondents but the results indicate they interacted with faculty at levels comparable to those of traditional-aged learners, student-faculty interaction scores most likely are unbiased.

Differences in engagement and response rates do exist, however, between men and women, as well as between full-time and part-time students. NSSE addresses these differences by weighting the results. NSSE encourages institutions to dig into their own data to discover meaningful differences between different types of students and, then, to evaluate representativeness.

12/23/16 of 75

mailto:nsse%40indiana.edu%0D?subject=

http://nsse.iub.edu








Administration Summary

Population and Respondents

Submitted populationAdjusted populationa

Survey sampleb

Total respondentsb

Full completionsc

Partial completions

Response Rate and Sampling Errora

Response rateSampling errorb

Representativeness and Weighting

FemaleFull-timeFirst-time, first-year

Race/ethnicitya

Am. Indian or Alaska NativeAsianBlack or African AmericanHispanic or LatinoNative Hawaiian/Other Pac. Isl.WhiteOtherForeign or nonresidentTwo or more races/ethnicitiesUnknown

Full-time, femaleFull-time, malePart-time, femalePart-time, male

1

NSSE 2019 Administration SummaryIthaca College

0 141

00 0 0 1

0

0 0 0 0

2 2 6 5

Population %

99 99 N/A N/A

This report provides an overview of your NSSE administration, including details about your population and sample, response rates, representativeness of your respondents, survey customization choices, and recruitment message schedule. This information can be useful for assessing data quality and planning future NSSE administrations.

First-year Senior

1,688

11 10 6 8

5866 56 68

The table at right reports your institution's population sizes, how many students were sampled (whether census-administered or randomly selected), and how many completed the survey.

First-year Senior1,4141,3691,365

462392

70

1,608

0

6 6 5 64 4 2 3

0

Respondent %First-year

44 32

Senior

66 56 67 57

IC Mid East Private Carnegie ClassNSSE 2018 &

2019 IC

41%

First-year Senior

NSSE 2018 & 2019

+/- 2.9%

34%

+/- 3.7%

The first table at right details variables submitted in your population file. Respondent and population percentages are listed side by side as a convenience to see how well the characteristics of your respondents reflect your first-year and senior populations. For detailed characteristics of the respondents in your reports, refer to your Respondent Profile.

NSSE data files include weights by institution-reported sex and enrollment status so institutional estimates reflect the population with respect to these characteristics. The second table at right provides the respondent and population proportions used to calculate your weights. For more information, see nsse.indiana.edu/links/weights

5 4 3 4

Respondent % Population % Respondent % Population %

34

Respondent % Population %

Carnegie Class

26%

+/- 0.4%

Representativeness

Weightinga

+/- 0.2% +/- 0.2%+/- 0.6% +/- 0.6%+/- 0.4%

100 100 99 98

a. Comparison group response rate and sampling error were computed at the student level (i.e., they are not institution averages) for all respondents.b. Also called “margin of error,” sampling error is an estimate of the amount a score based on a sample could differ from the true score on a given item. For example, if the sampling error is +/- 5.0% and 40% of your students replied "Very often" to a particular item, then the true population value is most likely between 35% and 45%.

23% 23%28% 27%27%

Mid East Private

3 3

a. Weights were also calculated for students with “Another” or “Unknown” codes for sex.

The table below summarizes response rates and sampling errors for your institution and comparison groups. For more information see NSSE’s Response Rate FAQ: nsse.indiana.edu/links/RRFAQ

662542120

a. Adjusted for ineligible students and those for whom survey requests were returned as undeliverable.b. Number of census or randomly sampled students invited to complete the survey. Targeted, experimental, and locally administered samples not included. c. Submitted demographic and (if applicable) Topical Module sets.

1,613

Survey completions

a. Based on the IPEDS categories submitted in the population file. Results for institutions without full (at least 90%) race/ethnicity information in the population file are not reported.

2

69 72 75 730 0 0 0

0 0

of 75

2 • NSSE 2019 ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY

Population FilePopulation file options

Included "group" variable(s)a No Identified students who completed BCSSE 2018d N/A

Identified an oversampleb No Customized the report samplee No

Updated to identify ineligible studentsc Yes

Survey OptionsAdministration features

Survey sample type CensusRecruitment method Email

Portal/LMS useda Yes (232, 21%)Incentive offered YesSurvey version U.S. EnglishInstitution logo used in survey Yes

Mobile respondentsb 488, 43%

Additional question sets and companion surveys

Topical module(s) Cultural DiversityConsortium NoneBCSSE 2018 NoFSSE 2019 No

Recruitment MessagesMessage schedule

First-yearInvitationReminder 1Reminder 2Reminder 3Final reminder

Report CustomizationComparison groups for NSSE core survey reports

Group 1 Mid East Private* (default, N=110)Group 2 Carnegie Class (customized, N=121)Group 3 NSSE 2018 & 2019 (default, N=812)

Comparison groups for additional question set report(s)Topical Module: Cultural Diversity Inclusiv & Cult Div (default, N=180)

Your institution provided a population file for survey administration and was afforded an opportunity to update it.

Cumulative response rate

a. Institutions had the option to include additional variables in the population file for oversampling or for post hoc analyses. Up to five group variables were allowed. If formatting specifications were met, Group 1 can be used in the Report Builder.b. Institutions that did not census-administer to first-year and senior students had the option to oversample a segment of their population. Oversamples may also be used to survey students in other class years.c. Institutions had the option to update their population files to identify students who did not return to campus in the spring or otherwise did not meet NSSE eligibility criteria.d. Institutions that participated in the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) can identify BCSSE survey respondents in their NSSE population file. This information is required to receive the longitudinal results in the BCSSE-NSSE Combined Report.e. Institutions had the option to flag a subset of students for exclusion from reports, but all sample members were invited to complete the survey.

31%

Date

a. Institutions that used their student portal or learning management system to recruit students are indicated by “Yes” followed by the number and percentage of respondents who used posted survey links.b. Number and percentage of students who responded with a smartphone or tablet. See the “operating system” variables in your SPSS data file for additional details.

34%39%41%

03/06/201903/19/2019

Your institution had the option to customize the comparison groups used in reports. The group selected for the Snapshot comparisons is identified with an asterisk.

NSSE 2019 Administration SummaryIthaca College

12%22%27%

14%23%35%02/26/2019

02/12/201902/20/2019

Senior

The options at right were available to customize the content of your NSSE survey and to collect complementary data from companion surveys.

Students received up to five direct contacts. Your institution had the option to customize message content and timing.

of 75

How do students rate their interactions with faculty?c

How often do students make course presentations?b

4% of FY students and 43% of seniors worked on a research project with a faculty member.

Do faculty members clearly explain course goals and requirements?

How often do students talk with faculty members or advisors about their career plans?b

33% of FY and 54% of seniors frequently discussed career plans with faculty.

80% of FY students said instructors clearly explained course goals and requirements "quite a bit" or "very much."

Do students receive prompt and detailed feedback?d

61% of FY students and 60% of seniors said instructors substantially gave prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments.

How often do students talk with faculty members outside class about what they are learning?b

How many students work on research projects with faculty?

29% of FY students frequently discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class.

How much writing is expected?

Do courses challenge students to do their best?a

How much time do students spend studying each week?

How much reading is expected?

31% of FY students frequently used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue; 44% of seniors frequently reached conclusions based on their own analysis of numerical information.

Are students expected to use numbers or statistics throughout their coursework?b

58% of FY students frequently included diverse perspectives in course discussions or assignments.

Do class discussions and assignments include the perspectives of diverse groups of people?b

FY students estimated they spent an average of 8 hours per week on assigned reading, and seniors read 7 hours per week.

In an academic year, FY students estimated they were assigned an average of 58 pages of writing and seniors estimated an average of 84 pages.

37% of FY students and 71% of seniors frequently gave course presentations.

40% of FY students reported that their courses highly challenged them to do their best work.

A Pocket Guide to Choosing a College:NSSE 2019 Answers from Students

56% of FY students rated the quality of their interactions with faculty as high.

Academics Experiences with Faculty

Each year the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) asks students at hundreds of colleges and universities to reflect on the time they devote to various learning activities. The topics explored are linked to previous research on student success in college.

Results from NSSE can provide prospective students with insights into how they might learn and develop at a given college. To help in the college exploration process, NSSE developed A Pocket Guide to Choosing a College to give students and their families key questions to ask during campus visits.

The following responses were provided by 1,124 IC students on the 2019 survey.

A Pocket Guide to Choosing a College

is available at nsse.indiana.edu/

links/pocket

Ithaca College

First-year (FY) students spent an average of 16 hours per week preparing for class while seniors spent an average of 15 hours per week. 16 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

First-year Senior

Hour

s per

wee

k

61% 60%

0%

50%

100%

First-year Senior

of 75

How many students study in other countries?

Notes

How well do students get along with each other?c

IPEDS: 191968

39% of FY students and 60% of seniors said at least some of their courses included a community-based service-learning project.

Are students encouraged to use learning support services (tutors, writing center)?d

a.

b.c.

d.e.

86% of FY and 89% of seniors rated their entire educational experience at this institution as "excellent" or "good."

How satisfied are students with their educational experience?

51% of FY students gave the quality of their interactions with their peers a high rating.

44% of FY students and 47% of seniors gave the quality of their interactions with academic advisors a high rating.

How do students rate their interactions with academic advisors?c

Center for Postsecondary ResearchIndiana University School of Education201 North Rose AvenueBloomington, IN 47405-1006Phone: 812-856-5824Email: [email protected]: nsse.indiana.eduTwitter: @NSSEsurvey, @NSSEinstituteFacebook: @NSSEsurveyBlog: NSSEsightings.indiana.edu

Learning with Peers

66% of seniors frequently explained course material to one or more students.

Rich Educational Experiences

What types of honors courses, learning communities, and other distinctive programs are offered?

During their first year, 11% of students participated in a learning community. By spring of their senior year, 82% of students had done (or were doing) a culminatingsenior experience.

By their senior year, 43% of students had studied abroad.

By spring of their senior year, 74% of students had participated in some form of internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement.

Do students help each other learn?b How many students get practical, real-world experience through internships or field experiences?

How often do students work together on course projects and assignments?b

How many courses include community-based service-learning projects?e

How often do students work together to prepare for exams?b

53% of FY students frequently prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students.

74% of FY students said the institution substantially emphasized the use of learning support services.

63% of FY students and 74% of seniors frequently worked with their peers on course projects and assignments.

"Highly" is a 6 or 7 on a seven-point scale where 1 is "Not at all" and 7 is "Very much.""Frequently" is "Often" or "Very often."A "High" rating is a 6 or 7 on a seven-point scale where 1 is "Poor" and 7 is "Excellent.""Substantially" is "Quite a bit" or "Very much.""At least some" is defined by combining responses of "Some," "Most," and "All."

Campus Environment

How often do students interact with others who have different viewpoints or who come from different backgrounds?b

Among FY students, 48% frequently had discussions with people with different political views, 70% frequently had discussions with people from a different economic background, and 71% frequently had discussions with people from a different race or ethnicity.

63%74%

0%

50%

100%

First-year Senior

39%60%

0%

50%

100%

First-year Senior

of 75

A Summary of Student Engagement Results

Engagement Indicators

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

-- Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

High-Impact PracticesFirst-year

Senior

--

Sets of items are grouped into ten Engagement Indicators, organized under four broad themes. At right are summary results for your institution. For details, see your Engagement Indicators report.

Key:

Academic Challenge

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

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

NSSE 2019 SnapshotIthaca College

Your students compared with

See your Selected Comparison Groups report for details.

Mid East Private

Comparison GroupThe comparison group

featured in this report is

This Snapshot is a concise collection of key findings from your institution’s NSSE 2019 administration. We hope this information stimulates discussions about the undergraduate experience. Additional details about these and other results appear in the reports referenced throughout.

Student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how institutional resources, courses, and other learning opportunities facilitate student participation in activities that matter to student learning. NSSE surveys undergraduate students in their first and final years to assess their levels of engagement and related information about their experience at your institution.

Due to their positive associations with student learning and retention, special undergraduate opportunities are designated "high-impact." For more details and statistical comparisons, see your High-Impact Practices report.

No significant difference.

Learning with Peers

Experiences with Faculty

Campus Environment

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

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

Mid East PrivateFirst-year Senior

▽▽

--

▽

----

--

Service-Learning, Learning Community, and Research w/Faculty

Service-Learning, Learning Community, Research w/Faculty, Internship, Study Abroad, and Culminating Senior Experience

--

----

▽▽

--

--

▽

88%

77%

10%

17%

IC

Mid East Private

Participated in two or more HIPs Participated in one HIP

6%

11%

40%

50%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

IC

Mid East Private

of 75

2 • NSSE 2019 SNAPSHOT

Academic Challenge: Additional Results

Time Spent Preparing for ClassFirst-year

Senior

Reading and WritingFirst-year

Senior

Challenging Students to Do Their Best Work Academic Emphasis

First-year

Senior


First-year Senior

How much did students say their institution emphasizes spending significant time studying and on academic work? Response options included "Very much," "Quite a bit," "Some," and "Very little."

The Academic Challenge theme contains four Engagement Indicators as well as several important individual items. The results presented here provide an overview of these individual items. For more information about the Academic Challenge theme, see your Engagement Indicators report. To further explore individual item results, see your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons, the Major Field Report, the Online Institutional Report, or the Report Builder.

This figure reports the average weekly class preparation time for your students compared to students in your comparison group.

To what extent did students' courses challenge them to do their best work? Response options ranged from 1 = "Not at all" to 7 = "Very much."

These figures summarize the number of hours your students spent reading for their courses and the average number of pages of assigned writing compared to students in your comparison group. Each is an estimate calculated from two or more separate survey questions.

7.1

7.2

7.3

8.2

0 10 20 30

Mid East Private

IC

Mid East Private

IC

Average Hours per Week on Course Reading

86.8

83.5

59.8

57.9

0 50 100 150Average Pages of

Assigned Writing, Current Year

15.0

14.5

15.4

15.9

0 10 20 30

Mid East Private

IC

Mid East Private

IC

Average Hours per Week Preparing for Class

59% 51% 53% 49%

40%47% 44% 48%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

IC Mid EastPrivate

IC Mid EastPrivate

77%

70%

79%

72%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Mid East Private

IC

Mid East Private

IC

Percentage Responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit"

of 75

NSSE 2019 SNAPSHOT • 3

Item Comparisons

First-yearHighest Performing Relative to Mid East PrivateQuality of interactions with facultyd (QI)

Spent more than 10 hours per week on assigned readingf

Worked with other students on course projects or assignmentsb (CL)

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledgeb (RI)

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignmentsb (RI)

Lowest Performing Relative to Mid East PrivateReviewed your notes after classb (LS)

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materialsb (LS)

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (…)b (QR)

Discussions with… People with political views other than your ownb (DD)

About how many courses have included a community-based project (service-learning)?e (HIP)

SeniorHighest Performing Relative to Mid East PrivateCompleted a culminating senior experience (…) (HIP)

Participated in a study abroad program (HIP)

Worked with a faculty member on a research project (HIP)

Quality of interactions with facultyd (QI)

Quality of interactions with studentsd (QI)

Lowest Performing Relative to Mid East PrivateInstitution emphasis on helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (…)c (SE)

Institution emphasis on studying and academic workc

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (…)b (QR)

Reviewed your notes after classb (LS)

Discussions with… People with political views other than your ownb (DD)


Percentage Point Difference with Mid East Private

a. The displays on this page draw from the items that make up the ten Engagement Indicators (EIs), six High-Impact Practices (HIPs), and the additional academic challenge items reported on page 2. Key to abbreviations for EI items: HO = Higher-Order Learning, RI = Reflective & Integrative Learning, LS = Learning Strategies, QR = Quantitative Reasoning, CL = Collaborative Learning, DD = Discussions with Diverse Others, SF = Student-Faculty Interaction, ET = Effective Teaching Practices, QI = Quality of Interactions, SE = Supportive Environment. HIP items are also indicated. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.b. Combination of students responding "Very often" or "Often."c. Combination of students responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit."d. Rated at least 6 on a 7-point scale.e. Percentage reporting at least "Some."f. Estimate based on the reported amount of course preparation time spent on assigned reading.g. Estimate based on number of assigned writing tasks of various lengths.

By examining individual NSSE questions, you can better understand what contributes to your institution's performance on theEngagement Indicators. This section displays the five questionsa on which your students scored the highest and the five questions on which they scored the lowest, relative to students in your comparison group. Parenthetical notes indicate whether an item belongs to a specific Engagement Indicator or is a High-Impact Practice. While these questions represent the largest differences (in percentage points), they may not be the most important to your institutional mission or current program or policy goals. For additional results, see your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report.

Percentage Point Difference with Mid East Private

-7

-9

-11

-14

-15

9b.

9c.

6a.

8d.

12.

+7

+6

+5

+5

+5

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

13c.

16.

1h.

2g.

2a.

Item #

Item #

-7

-7

-9

-14

-19

14g.

14a.

6a.

9b.

8d.

+23

+17

+12

+8

+7

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

11f.

11d.

11e.

13c.

13a.

of 75

4 • NSSE 2019 SNAPSHOT

How Students Assess Their Experience

Perceived Gains Among Seniors Satisfaction with IC

First-year

Senior

First-year

Senior

Administration DetailsResponse Summary Additional Questions

What is NSSE?

IPEDS: 191968

68%462

NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about student participation in activities and programs that promote their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending their college or university. Institutions use their data to identify aspects of the undergraduate experience that can be improved through changes in policy and practice.

NSSE has been in operation since 2000 and has been used at more than 1,600 colleges and universities in the US and Canada. More than 90% of participating institutions administer the survey on a periodic basis.

Visit our website: nsse.indiana.edu

Your institution administered the following additional question set(s):

Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity

See your Topical Module report(s) for results.

First-year

99%

See your Administration Summary and Respondent Profile reports for more information.

66%

Full-timeFemale

100%

Count Resp. rate

Senior

662 41%

34%

Percentage of Seniors Responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit"

Percentage Rating Their Overall Experience as "Excellent" or "Good"

Thinking critically and analytically

Working effectively with others

Percentage Who Would "Definitely" or "Probably" Attend This Institution Again

75%

72%

Writing clearly and effectively

Speaking clearly and effectively

Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills

Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics

61%

49%

Understanding people of other backgrounds (econ., racial/ethnic, polit., relig., nation., etc.)


Solving complex real-world problems

Being an informed and active citizen

Analyzing numerical and statistical information

61%

70%

66%

82%

77%

Students' perceptions of their cognitive and affective development, as well as their overall satisfaction with the institution, provide useful evidence of their educational experiences. For more details, see your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report.

88%

Students reported how much their experience at your institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal development in ten areas.

Students rated their overall experience at the institution, and whether or not they would choose it again.

Perceived Gains(Sorted highest to lowest)

82%

89%

83%

86%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Mid East Private

IC

Mid East Private

IC

76%

84%

80%

84%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Mid East Private

IC

Mid East Private

IC

of 75

About Your Engagement Indicators ReportTheme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order LearningReflective & Integrative LearningLearning StrategiesQuantitative Reasoning

Collaborative LearningDiscussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty InteractionEffective Teaching Practices

Quality of InteractionsReport Sections Supportive Environment

Overview (p. 3)

Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)

Mean Comparisons

Score Distributions

Performance on Indicator Items

Interpreting Comparisons

How Engagement Indicators are Computed

Rocconi, L.M., & Gonyea, R.M. (2018). Contextualizing effect sizes in the National Survey of Student Engagement: An empirical analysis. Research & Practice in Assessment, 13 (Summer/Fall), pp. 22-38.

Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed difference. For EI comparisons, NSSE research has concluded that an effect size of about .1 may be considered small, .3 medium, and .5 large (Rocconi & Gonyea, 2018). Comparisons with an effect size of at least .3 in magnitude (before rounding) are highlighted in the Overview (p. 3).

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 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 website: nsse.indiana.edu

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

NSSE 2019 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 2018 and 2019 participating institutions.

Displays how average EI scores for your students compare with those of students at your comparison group institutions.

Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers


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 broad 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:

Responses to each item in a given EI are summarized 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).

of 75

2 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

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 Students




Learning Strategies




Student-Faculty Interaction




Seniors




Learning Strategies








▲--

--▽▽

-- --

▽▽

--▽

▽

▽

--

-- ▽

----

---- --

▽

--

Carnegie Class

▽

NSSE 2018 & 2019

--

--

--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 broad 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

Mid East Private Carnegie Class

▽

NSSE 2018 & 2019

--

▽

Your first-year students compared with



--

▽


Mid East Private

--

NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge ▽

--

▽▽

Ithaca CollegeOverview

▽▽

of 75

NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3

Academic Challenge: First-year students

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator


Reflective & Integrative Learning * * ***

Learning Strategies ** * **

Quantitative Reasoning *** *** ***

Score Distributions

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.

ICYour first-year students compared with

Mid East Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2018 & 2019

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge

Ithaca College

Effect size

38.8 38.9 -.01 38.9 -.01 38.0 .06Mean Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean

.14

36.6 38.5 -.14 37.9 -.10 38.1 -.11

36.9 35.9 .08 35.9 .09 35.2

-.25Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Quantitative ReasoningLearning Strategies

24.1 27.1 -.20 28.5 -.29 27.8

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. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

0

15

30

45

60

IC Mid East Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2018 & 20190

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)Performance on Indicator Items


%

4b. 70

4c. 73

4d. 75

4e. 74


2a. 58

2b. 56

58

2d. 67

72

2f. 68

2g. 83

Learning Strategies

9a. 79

9b. 58

9c. 55


39

31

6c. 35


NSSE 2018 & 2019

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…


Ithaca College

The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.

Percentage point difference a between your FY students and

IC

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

+5 +4 +6

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

+4 +5 +6Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

+3 +6 +6

-2 -6 -0

+0 +4+1

2c.Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

+1 +2 +5

+3 +4 +7

+2 +2 +3

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

+5 +3 +6

2e.Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

+0 -1 +1Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

+1 +1 +1



-9 -7 -8

+1 +2 +4

-7 -5 -8

Identified key information from reading assignments

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

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 website.a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

6b.Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)

-4 -7 -4

6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

-11 -15 -13

-7 -9 -8

Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

of 75


Academic Challenge: Seniors

Mean Comparisons




Learning Strategies *** * ***

Quantitative Reasoning * *** **

Score Distributions

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


27.3 29.1 -.11 31.0 -.24 29.8 -.16


NSSE 2018 & 2019

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

MeanEffect size Mean

Effect size Mean

39.6 .05 39.3 .08 40.0 .02

38.2 .04


Ithaca College

.06 38.0 .06

37.2 -.19 36.0 -.11 38.5 -.27

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.


Effect size


38.0

IC

Mean

40.3

38.7

34.5

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)Performance on Indicator Items


%

4b. 76

4c. 76

4d. 73

4e. 74


2a. 68

2b. 61

57

2d. 65

72

2f. 73

2g. 86

Learning Strategies

9a. 77

9b. 44

9c. 56


44

41

6c. 41

+4

-1 -1 -1

-1

+0


Percentage point difference a between your seniors and


NSSE 2018 & 2019

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

-1 -3 -2

+1 +2 +1

+2

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

IC

-1 -3 -0

+6 +2

+3 +4 +2


Ithaca CollegeAcademic Challenge

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments


-8


-0 +0 -1

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

Identified key information from reading assignments

6b. -2 -5

-12e.

-5 -1

-9 -14

-1 +1

2c.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

+2 +5

-4

-3 -8 -4


Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)


6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

-11

-1

+2 +1 +2

+3 +2 +2

-14 -9 -18

of 75


Learning with Peers: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning *** *

Discussions with Diverse Others *** *** **

Score Distributions


Collaborative Learning%

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 52

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

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 53

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


8a. People of a race or ethnicity other than your own 71

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 70

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

8d. People with political views other than your own 48

Ithaca CollegeLearning with Peers


-1-2

-1

-4

+1

-16

+2



-0

-14Notes: 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 website.a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

-1

-16

+1

-1

+3

Mean

NSSE 2018 & 2019


IC


Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others


33.8 -.02

-4

-1

+3

+8

32.4

40.2 -.17 -.19


-2

-4

-.13

+5

-8

-7

-4

Mean

33.6

37.7

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.

Your first-year students compared withMid East Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2018 & 2019IC

39.440.4

.08

-.11

35.4

Effect sizeMean

Effect size Mean

Effect size

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Learning with Peers: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning ***

Discussions with Diverse Others ** ** *

Score Distributions


Collaborative Learning%

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 51

1f. Explained course material to one or more students 66

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 53

1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 74


8a. People of a race or ethnicity other than your own 74

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 72

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 69

8d. People with political views other than your own 42


Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…


+0 +1 +2

-19 -21 -24

+1 +2 +2

-2 -2 -1

+12

38.4



NSSE 2018 & 2019


IC

34.6 .04 36.1 -.07Mean

35.1

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.

Your seniors compared withIC

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsLearning with Peers

Ithaca College

+8

Mean

31.8

-.13 40.3 -.13 40.1Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Effect sizeMean

Effect size Mean

.21

40.3

Effect size

-.11

+6 +2


+2 -1 +8

-0 -3 +6

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others


+4 -2

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Experiences with Faculty: First-year students

Mean Comparisons




Score Distributions


Student-Faculty Interaction%

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

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

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 29

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


5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 80

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 74

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 76

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

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 61

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsExperiences with Faculty

Ithaca College

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…


-1 +2 +1

+3 +0 +3

-2 +3 +0

+0 -2 +0

+3 +2 +3

-1 +1 +2

-5 -1 -3




.0338.7 .02 38.2 .06 38.5Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

-5 -3 -6

-3 -2 -2

ICEffect size

Effect sizeMean

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.


MeanEffect size Mean Mean


21.8




NSSE 2018 & 2019


IC

22.5 21.7 .0121.7 .00-.06

38.9

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Experiences with Faculty: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Student-Faculty Interaction ** *** ***


Score Distributions


Student-Faculty Interaction%

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 54

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 40

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 45

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 37


5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 83

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 79

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 82

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 61

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 60



Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

-3 -1 -4

+2 +5

+0 +3 -0

-1 +5 +3

+8 +12

+6 +8 +12

-.02

27.1 .12 26.0 .19

38.9 .03 39.6

Effect sizeMean

Effect size Mean

.31

Effect size

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.


NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsExperiences with Faculty

Ithaca College

+0 +1

+6


Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices


+3 +6 +9

Mean

24.1

.04Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Mean

29.0

39.2

IC

+4

38.7



NSSE 2018 & 2019


IC

+5 +3 +3

+7

0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Campus Environment: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Quality of Interactions *

Supportive Environment *

Score Distributions


Quality of Interactions%

13a. Students 51

13b. Academic advisors 44

13c. Faculty 56

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 37

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 39


14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 77

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 74

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) 57

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 72

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 68

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

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 63

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues 52Notes: 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 website.a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

-2 -4 -1

-3 -1 +3

+2 -2 -1

-6 -5 -8

-5 -3 -4

+1 -1 +1

-1 -4 -6

-2 -3 -3

+2 +0 +1


IC


42.6 -.01

36.1 -.06 36.5 -.09 36.1 -.06

41.7 .08 42.7 -.0142.6

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.


NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsCampus Environment

Ithaca College

-5


+1 -2 +0

-5 -7 -9

-8 -9

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



NSSE 2018 & 2019


35.3

IC

+7 +5 +5

Effect sizeMean

Effect size Mean

Effect size MeanMean



0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


Campus Environment: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Quality of Interactions * *

Supportive Environment *

Score Distributions


Quality of Interactions%

13a. Students 60

13b. Academic advisors 47

13c. Faculty 61

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 29

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 34


14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 67

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 60

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) 48

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 63

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 51

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 22

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 57

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

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

-2 +1 +4

-5 -10

+2 -2 +5

-2 -7

-4 -4 -7

-5

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

32.3

40.5 .10 41.3




42.8 -.09

-.10

NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsCampus Environment

Ithaca College

Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment

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.

Your seniors compared withIC Mid East Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2018 & 2019

MeanEffect size

32.2 -.08

.03Mean

41.7

31.0 31.9 -.06

MeanEffect size Mean

Effect size


NSSE 2018 & 2019


IC

+3

-7 -9 -14

+4+8 +7

-0 +0 -6

+7 +5

+0 -2 -10

+0 -2 -3

-7

-0 -4 -1

-6 -10 -8


0

15

30

45

60


15

30

45

60


of 75


This page intentionally left blank.

of 75


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

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).a. Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator from all NSSE 2018 and 2019 institutions, separately by class. 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.b. Check marks are assigned to comparisons that are either significant and positive, or non-significant with an effect size > -.10.

NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%

NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%



IC

IC

Mean38.836.936.624.1

41.731.0

34.527.3

35.138.4

43.0 -.2041.6 -.24

Mean

42.0

29.941.8

40.8

41.839.9

42.6 -.5732.7 -.35

38.6 -.26

Mean Effect size

47.4 -.4837.0 -.43

43.5 -.33

33.9 -.3143.5 -.32

42.7 -.27

47.1 -.3840.1 -.36

-.44

37.7 -.3043.2 -.39

28.0 -.40

-.30-.27

-.25

-.07-.23

-.06-.19

Mean Effect size41.0 -.1738.8 -.1642.5 -.42

-.44

-.21-.13

-.20-.21

-.11-.10

-.04.01

37.733.6

-.24-.34

-.13-.24

Mean Effect size

41.335.4

29.3

35.3

Campus Environment

Learning with Peers


29.0

Academic Challenge

40.338.7

45.234.8

31.3

36.1

39.2

While NSSE’s policy is not to rank institutions (see nsse.indiana.edu/links/PNP), the results below are designed to compare the engagement of your students with those attending two groups of institutions identified by NSSEa for their high average levels of student engagement: (a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2018 and 2019 NSSE institutions, and (b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2018 and 2019 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 comparableb to that of the high-performing group. However, the presence of a check mark does not necessarily 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.


Ithaca College

Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers


Theme Engagement Indicator39.336.839.9

Effect size

30.8

24.9

Mean

40.6

44.938.1


Campus Environment

21.838.9

42.6

of 75


Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students

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

Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Academic ChallengeHigher-Order Learning

IC (N = 574) 38.8 11.7 .49 20 30 40 45 60Mid East Private 38.9 12.9 .08 20 30 40 50 60 602 -.1 .858 -.007

Carnegie Class 38.9 12.6 .05 20 30 40 45 60 586 -.1 .878 -.006NSSE 2018 & 2019 38.0 13.2 .02 20 30 40 45 60 576 .8 .100 .061

Top 50% 39.3 13.0 .03 20 30 40 50 60 578 -.6 .262 -.042Top 10% 41.0 13.0 .06 20 35 40 50 60 591 -2.2 .000 -.171

Reflective & Integrative LearningIC (N = 617) 36.9 11.2 .45 20 29 37 43 57

Mid East Private 35.9 11.8 .07 17 29 37 43 57 644 1.0 .035 .082Carnegie Class 35.9 11.7 .05 17 29 37 43 57 64,807 1.0 .032 .087

NSSE 2018 & 2019 35.2 12.0 .02 17 26 34 43 57 618 1.6 .000 .137Top 50% 36.8 11.8 .03 17 29 37 46 57 621 .1 .824 .009Top 10% 38.8 11.8 .06 20 31 40 46 60 37,492 -1.9 .000 -.159

Learning StrategiesIC (N = 558) 36.6 13.7 .58 13 27 33 47 60

Mid East Private 38.5 13.5 .08 20 27 40 47 60 27,101 -1.8 .001 -.137Carnegie Class 37.9 13.4 .06 20 27 40 47 60 57,866 -1.3 .023 -.097

NSSE 2018 & 2019 38.1 13.8 .02 20 27 40 47 60 314,230 -1.5 .009 -.111Top 50% 39.9 13.7 .04 20 33 40 53 60 153,415 -3.3 .000 -.238Top 10% 42.5 14.0 .07 20 33 40 53 60 36,034 -5.8 .000 -.417

Quantitative ReasoningIC (N = 560) 24.1 14.3 .60 0 13 20 33 47

Mid East Private 27.1 15.4 .09 0 20 27 40 60 586 -3.0 .000 -.197Carnegie Class 28.5 15.1 .06 0 20 27 40 60 571 -4.4 .000 -.293

NSSE 2018 & 2019 27.8 15.3 .03 0 20 27 40 60 561 -3.8 .000 -.245Top 50% 29.3 15.2 .04 7 20 27 40 60 562 -5.2 .000 -.340Top 10% 30.8 15.2 .07 7 20 33 40 60 573 -6.7 .000 -.440

Learning with PeersCollaborative Learning

IC (N = 647) 33.6 13.2 .52 10 25 35 40 60Mid East Private 33.8 13.6 .08 10 25 35 40 60 32,733 -.3 .633 -.019

Carnegie Class 35.4 13.7 .05 15 25 35 45 60 68,825 -1.8 .001 -.134NSSE 2018 & 2019 32.4 14.7 .02 5 20 30 40 60 649 1.2 .023 .080

Top 50% 35.4 13.7 .03 15 25 35 45 60 193,839 -1.8 .001 -.134Top 10% 37.7 13.6 .07 15 30 40 50 60 42,204 -4.1 .000 -.300

Discussions with Diverse OthersIC (N = 563) 37.7 13.5 .57 20 30 40 45 60

Mid East Private 40.2 14.8 .09 15 30 40 55 60 591 -2.5 .000 -.172Carnegie Class 40.4 14.3 .06 20 30 40 50 60 58,293 -2.7 .000 -.189

NSSE 2018 & 2019 39.4 15.6 .03 15 30 40 55 60 565 -1.7 .003 -.109Top 50% 41.3 14.9 .03 20 30 40 55 60 566 -3.6 .000 -.243Top 10% 43.2 14.4 .07 20 35 40 60 60 580 -5.6 .000 -.385

Ithaca College


Mean statistics Percentiled scores Comparison results

Detailed Statisticsa

of 75


Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Ithaca College




Experiences with FacultyStudent-Faculty Interaction

IC (N = 595) 21.8 13.0 .53 5 10 20 30 45Mid East Private 22.5 14.3 .08 0 10 20 30 50 623 -.8 .146 -.055

Carnegie Class 21.7 14.1 .06 0 10 20 30 50 607 .0 .989 .001NSSE 2018 & 2019 21.7 14.7 .03 0 10 20 30 50 596 .1 .866 .006

Top 50% 24.9 14.8 .04 5 15 20 35 55 601 -3.2 .000 -.214Top 10% 28.0 15.5 .11 5 15 25 40 60 648 -6.2 .000 -.402

Effective Teaching PracticesIC (N = 575) 38.9 11.5 .48 20 32 40 48 60

Mid East Private 38.7 12.7 .08 20 30 40 48 60 603 .2 .636 .018Carnegie Class 38.2 12.4 .05 20 30 40 48 60 60,643 .7 .188 .055

NSSE 2018 & 2019 38.5 13.2 .02 16 28 40 48 60 576 .5 .346 .034Top 50% 40.6 13.2 .04 20 32 40 52 60 580 -1.7 .000 -.129Top 10% 42.7 14.0 .07 20 32 44 56 60 602 -3.8 .000 -.270

Campus EnvironmentQuality of Interactions

IC (N = 537) 42.6 9.7 .42 28 36 42 50 58Mid East Private 41.7 11.9 .07 20 34 42 50 60 570 .9 .034 .077

Carnegie Class 42.7 11.3 .05 22 36 44 50 60 550 -.1 .777 -.011NSSE 2018 & 2019 42.6 12.1 .02 20 36 44 52 60 539 -.1 .849 -.007

Top 50% 44.9 11.4 .03 24 38 46 54 60 542 -2.3 .000 -.200Top 10% 47.1 11.8 .07 24 40 50 58 60 563 -4.5 .000 -.384

Supportive EnvironmentIC (N = 552) 35.3 12.3 .52 18 25 37 43 58

Mid East Private 36.1 13.4 .08 15 28 38 45 60 579 -.8 .148 -.057Carnegie Class 36.5 12.8 .05 15 28 38 45 60 56,376 -1.2 .032 -.091

NSSE 2018 & 2019 36.1 13.5 .02 15 28 38 45 60 553 -.8 .135 -.058Top 50% 38.1 13.2 .03 18 30 40 48 60 147,714 -2.8 .000 -.213Top 10% 40.1 13.2 .08 18 30 40 50 60 30,985 -4.8 .000 -.362

IPEDS: 191968

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex 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 (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.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.

of 75


Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Academic ChallengeHigher-Order Learning

IC (N = 413) 40.3 12.5 .61 20 30 40 50 60Mid East Private 39.6 13.4 .09 20 30 40 50 60 22,759 .7 .291 .052

Carnegie Class 39.3 13.1 .06 20 30 40 50 60 51,153 1.1 .097 .082NSSE 2018 & 2019 40.0 13.6 .02 20 30 40 50 60 413 .3 .598 .024

Top 50% 41.8 13.5 .04 20 35 40 55 60 414 -1.4 .020 -.106Top 10% 43.0 13.5 .07 20 35 40 55 60 422 -2.7 .000 -.199

Reflective & Integrative LearningIC (N = 429) 38.7 11.6 .56 20 31 37 46 60

Mid East Private 38.2 12.3 .08 20 29 37 46 60 24,124 .5 .384 .042Carnegie Class 38.0 12.1 .05 20 29 37 46 60 53,815 .7 .233 .058

NSSE 2018 & 2019 38.0 12.4 .02 17 29 37 46 60 368,630 .7 .249 .056Top 50% 39.9 12.2 .03 20 31 40 49 60 139,745 -1.2 .041 -.099Top 10% 41.6 12.2 .07 20 34 40 51 60 27,721 -2.9 .000 -.237

Learning StrategiesIC (N = 404) 34.5 14.5 .72 13 27 33 40 60

Mid East Private 37.2 14.5 .10 13 27 40 47 60 21,821 -2.7 .000 -.186Carnegie Class 36.0 14.1 .06 13 27 33 47 60 49,008 -1.5 .033 -.106

NSSE 2018 & 2019 38.5 14.5 .03 13 27 40 47 60 336,587 -4.0 .000 -.274Top 50% 40.8 14.4 .04 20 33 40 53 60 153,399 -6.3 .000 -.438Top 10% 42.6 14.3 .06 20 33 40 60 60 49,188 -8.1 .000 -.566

Quantitative ReasoningIC (N = 400) 27.3 15.5 .78 0 20 27 40 60


NSSE 2018 & 2019 29.8 16.1 .03 0 20 27 40 60 340,755 -2.6 .001 -.161Top 50% 31.3 16.0 .04 7 20 33 40 60 188,604 -4.0 .000 -.252Top 10% 32.7 15.8 .07 7 20 33 40 60 52,585 -5.5 .000 -.347

Learning with PeersCollaborative Learning

IC (N = 444) 35.1 11.7 .56 15 25 35 45 55Mid East Private 34.6 14.0 .09 15 25 35 45 60 466 .5 .355 .037

Carnegie Class 36.1 13.8 .06 15 25 35 45 60 453 -1.0 .073 -.073NSSE 2018 & 2019 31.8 15.7 .03 5 20 30 40 60 445 3.3 .000 .211

Top 50% 36.1 14.0 .03 15 25 35 45 60 447 -1.0 .076 -.071Top 10% 38.6 13.5 .08 15 30 40 50 60 464 -3.5 .000 -.258

Discussions with Diverse OthersIC (N = 404) 38.4 13.5 .67 15 30 40 50 60


NSSE 2018 & 2019 40.1 16.0 .03 15 30 40 55 60 405 -1.7 .012 -.106Top 50% 42.0 15.6 .04 15 30 40 60 60 406 -3.6 .000 -.233Top 10% 43.5 15.4 .07 20 35 45 60 60 412 -5.1 .000 -.334

Ithaca College




of 75


Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of freedom e

Meandiff. Sig. f

Effectsize g

Ithaca College




Experiences with FacultyStudent-Faculty Interaction

IC (N = 419) 29.0 13.8 .68 10 20 30 40 55Mid East Private 27.1 15.7 .10 5 15 25 40 60 437 1.9 .005 .123

Carnegie Class 26.0 15.3 .07 5 15 25 35 55 426 2.9 .000 .192NSSE 2018 & 2019 24.1 16.1 .03 0 10 20 35 55 419 4.9 .000 .305

Top 50% 29.9 15.9 .06 5 20 30 40 60 424 -.9 .191 -.056Top 10% 33.9 15.8 .15 10 20 35 45 60 458 -4.9 .000 -.314

Effective Teaching PracticesIC (N = 411) 39.2 11.5 .57 20 32 40 48 60

Mid East Private 38.7 13.4 .09 16 28 40 48 60 431 .5 .398 .036Carnegie Class 38.9 12.7 .06 20 32 40 48 60 418 .4 .537 .028

NSSE 2018 & 2019 39.6 13.8 .02 16 32 40 52 60 412 -.3 .548 -.025Top 50% 41.8 13.6 .04 20 32 40 52 60 414 -2.5 .000 -.186Top 10% 43.5 13.5 .07 20 36 44 56 60 424 -4.3 .000 -.318

Campus EnvironmentQuality of Interactions

IC (N = 393) 41.7 9.5 .48 24 36 42 48 56Mid East Private 40.5 12.0 .08 18 33 42 50 60 416 1.2 .015 .099

Carnegie Class 41.3 11.3 .05 20 34 42 50 60 401 .3 .476 .031NSSE 2018 & 2019 42.8 12.2 .02 20 36 44 52 60 393 -1.1 .022 -.091

Top 50% 45.2 11.8 .03 23 38 48 54 60 395 -3.5 .000 -.297Top 10% 47.4 12.0 .06 24 40 50 58 60 403 -5.7 .000 -.478

Supportive EnvironmentIC (N = 397) 31.0 12.4 .62 13 23 30 40 53

Mid East Private 31.9 13.7 .09 10 23 33 40 58 414 -.9 .158 -.065Carnegie Class 32.3 12.9 .06 10 23 33 40 55 48,197 -1.3 .048 -.100

NSSE 2018 & 2019 32.2 14.1 .02 10 23 33 40 58 397 -1.2 .055 -.085Top 50% 34.8 13.9 .04 13 25 35 45 60 399 -3.8 .000 -.270Top 10% 37.0 14.0 .09 13 28 38 48 60 412 -6.0 .000 -.426

IPEDS: 191968

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex 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 (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.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.

of 75

About Your High-Impact Practices Report

Report Sections

Interpreting Comparisons

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.National Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success—Annual Report 2007. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Rocconi, L.M., & Gonyea, R.M. (2018). Contextualizing effect sizes in the National Survey of Student Engagement: An empirical analysis. Research & Practice in Assessment, 13 (Summer/Fall), pp. 22-38.

HIP participation varies more among students within an institution than it does between institutions, like many experiences and outcomes in higher education. As a result, focusing attention on overall participation rates amounts to examining the tip of the iceberg. It is equally important to understand how student engagement (including HIP participation) varies within your institution. The table on page 6 provides an initial look at how HIP participation varies by selected student characteristics. The Report Builder and your Major Field Report (both to be released in the fall) offer further perspectives on internal variation and can help you investigate your students’ HIP participation in depth.

Displays your students' participation in each HIP by selected student characteristics.Participation by Student Characteristics (p. 6)

NSSE 2019 High-Impact PracticesAbout This Report

Response Detail (pp. 4-5) Provides complete response frequencies for the relevant HIP questions for your students and those at your comparison group institutions. First-year results include a summary of their expectations for future HIP participation.

Overall HIP ParticipationDisplays the percentage of students who participated in one HIP and in two or more HIPs, relative to those at your comparison group institutions.

Displays HIP participation for your students compared with that of students at your comparison group institutions. Two views present insights into your students' HIP participation:

Service-Learning Courses that included a community-based project

Learning Community Formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together

Research with Faculty Work with a faculty member on a research project

Internship or Field Experience Internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement

Study Abroad

Culminating Senior Experience Capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, portfolio, etc.

Due to their positive associations with student learning and retention, certain undergraduate opportunities are designated "high-impact." High-Impact Practices (HIPs) share several traits: They demand considerable time and effort, facilitate learning outside of the classroom, require meaningful interactions with faculty and students, encourage collaboration with diverse others, and provide frequent and substantive feedback. As a result, participation in these practices can be life-changing (Kuh, 2008). NSSE founding director George Kuh recommends that institutions should aspire for all students to participate in at least two HIPs over the course of their undergraduate experience—one during the first year and one in the context of their major (NSSE, 2007).

NSSE asks students about their participation in the six HIPs shown in the box at right. Unlike most questions on the NSSE survey, the HIP questions are not limited to the current school year. Thus, senior students' responses include participation from prior years.

Statistical ComparisonsComparisons of participation in each HIP and overall for your students relative to those at comparison group institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes.

High-Impact Practices in NSSE

Participation Comparisons (p. 3)

of 75

2 • NSSE 2019 HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES

Overall HIP Participation

Statistical Comparisons

First-year % Difference a ES b Difference a ES b Difference a ES b

Service-Learning 39 -15 *** -.31 -9 *** -.18 -14 *** -.29

Learning Community 11 -4 ** -.12 -3 * -.09 -2 -.05

Research with Faculty 4 -1 -.02 -1 -.05 -0 -.02

Participated in at least one 46 -15 *** -.29 -9 *** -.18 -12 *** -.24

Participated in two or more 6 -5 *** -.17 -4 ** -.14 -4 ** -.14

SeniorService-Learning 60 -2 -.04 +2 .03 -1 -.01

Learning Community 25 -3 -.07 -3 -.06 +3 .06

Research with Faculty 43 +12 *** .26 +8 *** .17 +20 *** .44

Internship or Field Exp. 74 +7 ** .16 +7 ** .14 +25 *** .53

Study Abroad 43 +17 *** .36 +10 *** .21 +28 *** .65

Culminating Senior Exp. 82 +23 *** .52 +22 *** .50 +37 *** .80

Participated in at least one 97 +3 ** .17 +3 ** .17 +12 *** .47

Participated in two or more 88 +11 *** .29 +9 *** .24 +28 *** .65

NSSE 2019 High-Impact PracticesParticipation Comparisons

Ithaca College

The figures below display the percentage of students who participated in High-Impact Practices. Both figures include participation in service-learning, a learning community, and research with faculty. The senior figure also includes participation in an internship or field experience, study abroad, and culminating senior experience. The first segment in each bar shows the percentage who

The table below displays the percentage of your students who participated in a given High-Impact Practice, including the percentage who participated in at least one or in two or more HIPs. It also graphs the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison groups. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is compared to the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is compared to the comparison group. (Comparison group percentages appear on the following pages.)

participated in at least two HIPs, and the full bar (both colors) represents the percentage who participated in at least one.

First-year Senior

Mid East Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2018 & 2019IC

Your students' participation compared with:

a. Percentage point differences (institution – comp. group) rounded to whole numbers. Values less than one may not display a bar and may be shown as +0 or -0.b. Cohen's h (standardized difference between two proportions). Effect sizes indicate the practical importance of observed differences. For service-learning, internships, study abroad, and culminating senior experiences, an ES of about .2 may be considered small, .5 medium, and .8 large. For learning community and research with faculty, an ES of about .1 may be considered small, .3 medium, and .5 large (Rocconi & Gonyea, 2018). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (z- test comparing participation rates).

Note: Participation includes the percentage of students who responded "Done or in progress" except for service-learning which is the percentage who responded that at least "Some" courses included a community-based project. All results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and by institution size for comparison groups).

10%

10%

11%

6%

48%

45%

50%

40%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Carnegie Class

Mid East Private

IC


60%

78%

77%

88%

25%

16%

17%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Carnegie Class

Mid East Private

IC


of 75

NSSE 2019 HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES • 3

First-Year StudentsService-Learning % Most or all % Some % None

3 35 61

9 45 46

7 40 52

10 43 47

Learning Community % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

11 20 37 32

15 28 33 24

14 26 31 29

13 28 33 27

Research with a Faculty Member % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

4 41 37 18

5 38 38 19

5 41 35 19

5 34 38 24

Plans to Participatea

84 67 78

78 50 60

78 54 62

73 40 54

a. Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons for details on the other response options.

NSSE 2019 High-Impact PracticesResponse DetailIthaca College

Internship or Field ExperienceParticipate in an internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement.

Study AbroadParticipate in a study abroad program.

Culminating Senior ExperienceComplete a culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, portfolio, etc.).

Percentage responding "Plan to do"Knowing whether first-year students plan to participate in upper-division HIPs can reveal insights about HIP demand, awareness of opportunities, and the clarity of institutional information. These results might also point to topics for additional exploration, such as what contributes to students’ expectations, their assumptions about who can participate, or why other students are undecided or have no plans to participate in the activity.

IC

Mid East Private

Carnegie Class

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2018 & 2019

IC

Mid East Private

About how many of your courses at this institution have included a community-based project (service-learning)?

Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together.

Work with a faculty member on a research project.

IC

Mid East Private

Note: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).

IC

Mid East Private

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2018 & 2019

NSSE 2018 & 2019

of 75

4 • NSSE 2019 HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES

SeniorsService-Learning % Most or all % Some % None

7 53 40

11 51 38

8 50 42

12 48 39

Learning Community % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

25 6 7 62

28 9 12 51

28 7 9 57

23 10 15 53

Research with a Faculty Member % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

43 10 5 41

31 10 11 48

35 9 9 48

23 12 16 50

Internship or Field Experience % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

74 12 4 11

67 15 6 12

67 15 5 12

49 23 10 18

Study Abroad % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

43 2 3 52

26 5 8 62

32 5 5 57

14 7 12 67

Culminating Senior Experience % Done or in progress % Plan to do % Have not decided % Do not plan to do

82 13 1 4

59 16 6 20

60 17 4 19

45 25 10 21

Note: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).

NSSE 2019 High-Impact PracticesResponse DetailIthaca College

Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together.

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2018 & 2019

IC

Mid East Private

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Carnegie Class

IC

Mid East Private

NSSE 2018 & 2019

IC

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Carnegie Class

Work with a faculty member on a research project.

About how many of your courses at this institution have included a community-based project (service-learning)?

Participate in an internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement.

Participate in a study abroad program.

Complete a culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, portfolio, etc.).

Mid East Private

NSSE 2018 & 2019

Mid East Private

Carnegie Class

IC

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2018 & 2019

IC

Mid East Private

Carnegie Class

IC

Mid East Private

of 75

NSSE 2019 HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES • 5

Participation in High-Impact Practices by Student Characteristics

Sexa% % % % % % % % %

Female 37 11 3 65 32 49 81 46 84Male 41 11 6 54 16 34 64 37 80

Race/ethnicity or internationala

American Indian or Alaska Native — — — — — — — — —Asian 63 15 4 — — — — — —Black or African American 61 10 6 65 20 45 80 20 85Hispanic or Latino 35 11 3 71 29 48 68 52 67Native Hawaiian/Other Pac. Islander — — — — — — — — —White 34 10 4 59 26 44 76 45 84Other — — — — — — — — —Foreign or nonresident 69 25 6 — — — — — —Two or more races/ethnicities 43 13 7 69 43 57 71 50 86

AgeTraditional (FY < 21, Seniors < 25) 39 11 4 62 27 45 76 44 84Nontraditional (FY 21+, Seniors 25+) — — — — — — — — —

First-generationb

Not first-generation 37 11 4 60 25 42 75 45 83First-generation 43 9 4 67 33 53 77 36 82

Enrollment statusa

Not full-time — — — — — — — — —Full-time 38 11 4 61 27 45 75 43 82

ResidenceNot on campus 38 0 0 62 26 42 73 43 81On campus 38 11 4 60 28 50 80 44 88

Major categoryc

Arts & humanities 35 4 0 45 25 44 64 55 91Biological sciences, agriculture, natural res. 39 16 9 90 45 70 75 60 90Physical sciences, math, computer science 32 16 24 32 16 79 63 26 89Social sciences 31 7 2 61 10 71 68 41 90Business 49 15 7 56 21 29 74 34 79Communications, media, public relations 37 15 3 56 21 26 83 66 77Education 57 9 0 83 28 33 94 6 89Engineering — — — — — — — — —Health professions 38 13 2 75 41 47 75 31 78Social service professions — — — — — — — — —Undecided/undeclared 60 7 13 — — — — — —

Overall 39 11 4 60 25 43 74 43 82Notes: Percentage of students who responded "Done or in progress" except for service-learning which is the percentage who responded that at least "Some" courses included a community- based project. Percentages are not reported (—) for row categories containing fewer than 10 students. Results are unweighted, except for overall percentages which are weighted by sex and enrollment status. a. Institution-reported variable. If provided, “Another” and “Unknown” categories for sex are not displayed due to low Ns, but do appear in the data file.b. Neither parent (or guardian) holds a bachelor's degree.c. These are NSSE's default related-major categories, based on first major if more than one was reported. Institution-customized major categories will be included on the Major Field Report, to be released in the fall. Excludes majors categorized as "all other."

NSSE 2019 High-Impact PracticesParticipation by Student Characteristics

Ithaca College

The table below displays the percentage of your students who participated in each HIP by selected student characteristics. Examining participation rates for different groups offers insight into how engagement varies within your student population.

First-year Senior

Lea

rnin

g C

omm

unity

Ser

vice

- L

earn

ing

Res

earc

h w

ith

Fac

ulty

Lea

rnin

g C

omm

unity

Ser

vice

- L

earn

ing

Res

earc

h w

ith

Fac

ulty

Inte

rnsh

ip o

r F

ield

Exp

erie

nce

Stu

dy

Abr

oad

Cul

min

atin

g S

enio

r Exp

erie

nce

of 75

Comparison Groups

Report Comparisons

Reading This Report

Comparison Group 3: All other 2018 and 2019 U.S. NSSE institutions (2018 and 2019 Canadian participants are also included in this group for Canadian institutions).

The NSSE Institutional Report displays core survey results for your students alongside those of three comparison groups. In May, your institution was invited to customize these groups via a form on the Institution Interface. This report summarizes how your comparison groups were constructed and lists the institutions within them.

NSSE comparison groups may be customized by (a) identifying specific institutions from the list of all 2018 and 2019 NSSE participants, (b) composing the group by selecting institutional characteristics, or (c) a combination of these. Institutions that chose not to customize received default groupsa that provide relevant comparisons for most institutions.

Institutions that appended additional question sets in the form of Topical Modules or through consortium participation were also invited to customize comparison groups for those reports. The default for those groups was all other 2018 and 2019 institutions where the questions were administered. Please note: Comparison group details for Topical Module and consortium reports are documented separately in those reports.

Comparison groups are located in the institutional reports as illustrated in the mock report at right. In this example, the three groups are "Admissions Overlap," "Carnegie UG Program," and "NSSE Cohort."

This report consists of three sections that provide details for each of your comparison groups, illustrated at right.

NSSE 2019 Selected Comparison GroupsAbout This Report

a. The default groups are:Comparison Group 1: For institutions not in a NSSE consortium, this group contains 2018 and 2019 NSSE institutions in the same geographic region and sector (public/private). For consortium institutions, it contains results for the other 2018 (if applicable) and 2019 consortium members. Comparison Group 2: All other 2018 and 2019 U.S. NSSE institutions sharing your institution's Basic Carnegie Classification. (Canadian institutions are not classified by the Carnegie Foundation, and must identify a comparison group.)

Comparison Group NameThe name assigned to the comparison group is listed here.

How Group was ConstructedIndicates whether your group was drawn from a list, built based on criteria, or is the default group. If institutional characteristics were used to build your comparison group, they are listed here.

Institution ListThe names, cities and states orprovinces of the comparison institutions are listed for your reference. NSSE 2018 participants are identified with an asterisk.

Comparison Group 1

Comparison Group 2

Comparison Group 3

Your Students'Responses

of 75

*2018 participant

2 • NSSE 2019 SELECTED COMPARISON GROUPS

Comparison Group 1: Mid East Private

Mid East Private (N=110)Adelphi University (Garden City, NY) Howard University (Washington, DC)*

Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (Albany, NY) Iona College (New Rochelle, NY)

Albright College (Reading, PA) Jefferson (Philadelphia University & Thomas Jefferson University) (Philadelphia, PA)*

Alfred University (Alfred, NY)* Keuka College (Keuka Park, NY)*

Alvernia University (Reading, PA) Keystone College (La Plume, PA)*

American University (Washington, DC)* King's College (Wilkes-Barre, PA)

Bard College (Annandale-On-Hudson, NY) La Salle University (Philadelphia, PA)

Bloomfield College (Bloomfield, NJ) Lafayette College (Easton, PA)*

Caldwell University (Caldwell, NJ)* Le Moyne College (Syracuse, NY)*

Canisius College (Buffalo, NY) Lebanon Valley College (Annville, PA)

Catholic University of America, The (Washington, DC) Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)*

Cedar Crest College (Allentown, PA) LIM College (New York, NY)

Chestnut Hill College (Philadelphia, PA)* Long Island University - Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY)

Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY) Long Island University - Post (Brookville, NY)

College of Mount Saint Vincent (Bronx, NY)* Loyola University Maryland (Baltimore, MD)*

College of Saint Rose, The (Albany, NY) Lycoming College (Williamsport, PA)

Concordia College New York (Bronxville, NY) Manhattan College (Riverdale, NY)*

D'Youville College (Buffalo, NY) Manhattanville College (Purchase, NY)

Daemen College (Amherst, NY) Marist College (Poughkeepsie, NY)*

Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA) Marymount Manhattan College (New York, NY)

Dominican College of Blauvelt (Orangeburg, NY) Marywood University (Scranton, PA)

Felician University (Lodi, NJ) Mercyhurst University (Erie, PA)

Franklin and Marshall College (Lancaster, PA)* Misericordia University (Dallas, PA)

Geneva College (Beaver Falls, PA) Molloy College (Rockville Centre, NY)*

George Washington University (Washington, DC)* Monmouth University (West Long Branch, NJ)*

Georgian Court University (Lakewood, NJ) Moore College of Art and Design (Philadelphia, PA)*

Goldey-Beacom College (Wilmington, DE)* Moravian College (Bethlehem, PA)

Goucher College (Baltimore, MD)* Mount Aloysius College (Cresson, PA)

Grove City College (Grove City, PA)* Mount Saint Mary College (Newburgh, NY)*

Gwynedd Mercy University (Gwynedd Valley, PA)* Mount St. Mary's University (Emmitsburg, MD)

Harrisburg University of Science and Technology (Harrisburg, PA) Nazareth College (Rochester, NY)

Hilbert College (Hamburg, NY) New School, The (New York, NY)

Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Geneva, NY)* New York University (New York, NY)*

Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY)* Niagara University (Niagara University, NY)*

Hood College (Frederick, MD) Notre Dame of Maryland University (Baltimore, MD)

How was this comparison group constructed? Region (Mid East); Sector (Priv)

Your institution retained the default comparison group (region and sector). Your default group is:

Group description (as provided by your institution)

Date submitted 5/14/19

All other current- and prior-year (if applicable) NSSE institutions in same geographic region and sector

This section summarizes how this group was identified, including selection criteria and whether the default group was used. This is followed by the resulting list of institutions in this group.

NSSE 2019 Selected Comparison GroupsIthaca College

of 75

*2018 participant NSSE 2019 SELECTED COMPARISON GROUPS • 3


Mid East Private (N=110), continuedNyack College (Nyack, NY)

Pace University (New York, NY)*

Paul Smith's College (Paul Smiths, NY)*

Point Park University (Pittsburgh, PA)

Pratt Institute (Brooklyn, NY)*

Rider University (Lawrenceville, NJ)

Robert Morris University (Moon Township, PA)*

Roberts Wesleyan College (Rochester, NY)*

Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY)

Rosemont College (Rosemont, PA)*

Saint Francis University (Loretto, PA)

Saint Joseph's University (Philadelphia, PA)*

Saint Peter's University (Jersey City, NJ)

Seton Hall University (South Orange, NJ)

Seton Hill University (Greensburg, PA)

Siena College (Loudonville, NY)*

St. Bonaventure University (Saint Bonaventure, NY)

St. Francis College (Brooklyn Heights, NY)*

St. John Fisher College (Rochester, NY)

St. John's University-New York (Queens, NY)*

St. Joseph's College - Brooklyn Campus (Brooklyn, NY)*

St. Joseph's College - Long Island Campus (Patchogue, NY)*

Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)

Susquehanna University (Selinsgrove, PA)*

Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)*

Thiel College (Greenville, PA)*

Touro College (New York, NY)

Union College (Schenectady, NY)*

University of Scranton (Scranton, PA)

Ursinus College (Collegeville, PA)*

Utica College (Utica, NY)*

Wagner College (Staten Island, NY)

Washington & Jefferson College (Washington, PA)

Washington Adventist University (Takoma Park, MD)

Washington College (Chestertown, MD)

Westminster College (New Wilmington, PA)

Widener University (Chester, PA)

Wilkes University (Wilkes-Barre, PA)

Wilson College (Chambersburg, PA)*

York College of Pennsylvania (York, PA)

of 75

*2018 participant


Comparison Group 2: Carnegie Class

Carnegie Class (N=121)Albright College (Reading, PA) Furman University (Greenville, SC)*

American University (Washington, DC)* Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA)

Auburn University (Auburn, AL) Grove City College (Grove City, PA)*

Bellarmine University (Louisville, KY)* Hanover College (Hanover, IN)

Benedictine College (Atchison, KS)* Harvey Mudd College (Claremont, CA)

Bentley University (Waltham, MA) Hendrix College (Conway, AR)*

Berea College (Berea, KY) Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Geneva, NY)*

Berry College (Mount Berry, GA) Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY)*

Birmingham-Southern College (Birmingham, AL) Hope College (Holland, MI)

Boston University (Boston, MA)* Howard University (Washington, DC)*

Bradley University (Peoria, IL)* Illinois Wesleyan University (Bloomington, IL)

Brigham Young University (Provo, UT) Indiana University Bloomington (Bloomington, IN)*

Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH)* Kalamazoo College (Kalamazoo, MI)

Cedarville University (Cedarville, OH)* Kettering University (Flint, MI)*

Centre College (Danville, KY)* Lafayette College (Easton, PA)*

Chapman University (Orange, CA) Lawrence University (Appleton, WI)

Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY) Lebanon Valley College (Annville, PA)

College of New Jersey, The (Ewing, NJ)* Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA)*

College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, The (Saint Joseph, MN) Lewis & Clark College (Portland, OR)*

College of Wooster, The (Wooster, OH)* Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College (Baton Rouge, LA)*

Colorado School of Mines (Golden, CO) Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)*

Concordia College at Moorhead (Moorhead, MN)* Lyon College (Batesville, AR)

Connecticut College (New London, CT) Marist College (Poughkeepsie, NY)*

Cornell College (Mount Vernon, IA)* Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI)

Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, GA)* Miami University-Oxford (Oxford, OH)

DePauw University (Greencastle, IN)* Michigan Technological University (Houghton, MI)*

Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA) New College of Florida (Sarasota, FL)

Drake University (Des Moines, IA) New York University (New York, NY)*

Earlham College (Richmond, IN)* Northeastern University (Boston, MA)*

Eckerd College (Saint Petersburg, FL) Occidental College (Los Angeles, CA)

Elon University (Elon, NC) Oglethorpe University (Atlanta, GA)*

Emerson College (Boston, MA)* Ohio Northern University (Ada, OH)*

Emmanuel College (Boston, MA)* Olin College of Engineering (Needham, MA)

Florida Southern College (Lakeland, FL)* Pepperdine University (Malibu, CA)

Franklin and Marshall College (Lancaster, PA)* Pitzer College (Claremont, CA)




How was this comparison group constructed?

Your institution customized this group by selecting institutional characteristics as follows:

UG Profile (FT 4yr/MoreSel/LowTrans)


Comparison group based on all other institutions sharing IC's Carnegie Undergraduate Profile: "FT4/MS/LTI: Four-year, full-time, more selective, lower transfer-in".

of 75

*2018 participant NSSE 2019 SELECTED COMPARISON GROUPS • 5


Carnegie Class (N=121), continuedPratt Institute (Brooklyn, NY)*

Quinnipiac University (Hamden, CT)*

Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY)

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (Terre Haute, IN)*

Saint Anselm College (Manchester, NH)

Saint Joseph's University (Philadelphia, PA)*

Saint Mary's College (Notre Dame, IN)

Samford University (Birmingham, AL)

Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA)*

Scripps College (Claremont, CA)*

Seton Hall University (South Orange, NJ)

Shaw University (Raleigh, NC)

Simmons University (Boston, MA)

Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)

Southwestern University (Georgetown, TX)

Spelman College (Atlanta, GA)

St. John's University-New York (Queens, NY)*

St. Olaf College (Northfield, MN)*

Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)

Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)*

Trinity University (San Antonio, TX)*

Truman State University (Kirksville, MO)

Tulane University (New Orleans, LA)*

Union College (Schenectady, NY)*

United States Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point, NY)

University of Alabama, The (Tuscaloosa, AL)

University of Connecticut (Storrs, CT)*

University of Dallas (Irving, TX)

University of Denver (Denver, CO)*

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Champaign, IL)

University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY)

University of Minnesota Duluth (Duluth, MN)*

University of Missouri (Columbia, MO)

University of Nebraska at Lincoln (Lincoln, NE)

University of New Hampshire (Durham, NH)

University of Oklahoma - Norman Campus (Norman, OK)

University of Portland (Portland, OR)*

University of Redlands (Redlands, CA)*

University of Richmond (University of Richmond, VA)*

University of Scranton (Scranton, PA)

University of Tulsa (Tulsa, OK)

Ursinus College (Collegeville, PA)*

Wabash College (Crawfordsville, IN)*

Washington & Jefferson College (Washington, PA)

Washington College (Chestertown, MD)

Wentworth Institute of Technology (Boston, MA)*

Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)

Wheaton College (Norton, MA)

Whitworth University (Spokane, WA)

William Jewell College (Liberty, MO)

Wofford College (Spartanburg, SC)

of 75

*2018 participant


Comparison Group 3: NSSE 2018 & 2019

NSSE 2018 & 2019 (N=812)All other NSSE 2018 and 2019 U.S. participants

View list at nsse.indiana.edu/links/NSSE1819





Your institution retained the default comparison group (NSSE 2018 and 2019 U.S. institutions).


All other current- and prior-year (if applicable) U.S. NSSE institutions

of 75

This is a facsimile of the U.S. English version of the online NSSE instrument as it appears to the student. A paper-formatted facsimile of the survey which includes item numbering is available on the

NSSE Web site: nsse.iub.edu/html/survey_instruments.cfm

Screen 1 of 3 NSSE is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Copyright © 2019 The Trustees of Indiana University Use of this survey without permission is prohibited.

of 75

Screen 1 of 3 (continued) NSSE is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Copyright © 2019 The Trustees of Indiana University Use of this survey without permission is prohibited.

of 75

Screen 1 of 3 (continued)

NSSE is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Copyright © 2019 The Trustees of Indiana University Use of this survey without permission is prohibited.

of 75


of 75


[This question is only asked of non-senior respondents.]

of 75


of 75

Prompt for Additional Comments (Institutions select one of four questions for the end of the NSSE questionnaire.)

Screen 3 of 3 NSSE is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Copyright © 2019 The Trustees of Indiana University Use of this survey without permission is prohibited

of 75

About This Topical Module

Comparison Group

Inclusiv & Cult Div (N=180)Albright College (Reading, PA) College of New Jersey, The (Ewing, NJ)*Alvernia University (Reading, PA) College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University, The (Saint Joseph, MN)American University (Washington, DC)* College of Saint Mary (Omaha, NE)*Andrews University (Berrien Springs, MI) Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO)Aquinas College (Grand Rapids, MI)* Colorado Technical University (Colorado Springs, CO)*Ashland University (Ashland, OH)* Concordia University (Portland, OR)Augusta University (Augusta, GA) Concordia University Texas (Austin, TX)*Baker University (Baldwin City, KS) Concordia University-Saint Paul (Saint Paul, MN)

Ball State University (Muncie, IN)* Converse College (Spartanburg, SC)*Barton College (Wilson, NC)* Culver-Stockton College (Canton, MO)

Bay Path University (Longmeadow, MA) CUNY York College (Jamaica, NY)Berea College (Berea, KY) Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA)Biola University (La Mirada, CA)* Doane University (Crete, NE)*Boston University (Boston, MA)* East Tennessee State University (Johnson City, TN)

Bowling Green State University (Bowling Green, OH) Emporia State University (Emporia, KS)*Bradley University (Peoria, IL)* Fitchburg State University (Fitchburg, MA)California Baptist University (Riverside, CA) Fontbonne University (Saint Louis, MO)*California State University, Chico (Chico, CA)* Fort Lewis College (Durango, CO)California State University, Fullerton (Fullerton, CA)* Franklin and Marshall College (Lancaster, PA)*Capilano University (North Vancouver, BC) Fresno Pacific University (Fresno, CA)

Capital University (Columbus, OH) Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA)Carthage College (Kenosha, WI) Grace College and Theological Seminary (Winona Lake, IN)Castleton University (Castleton, VT) Grand View University (Des Moines, IA)Central Michigan University (Mount Pleasant, MI) Gustavus Adolphus College (Saint Peter, MN)Centre College (Danville, KY)* Hendrix College (Conway, AR)*Champlain College (Burlington, VT)* High Point University (High Point, NC)Chapman University (Orange, CA) Hilbert College (Hamburg, NY)Chestnut Hill College (Philadelphia, PA)* Hood College (Frederick, MD)Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, The (Charleston, SC) Hope College (Holland, MI)Cleveland State University (Cleveland, OH)* Indiana University Kokomo (Kokomo, IN)*

Group description All other current- and prior-year (if applicable) NSSE institutions who administered module "Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity"

Group label Inclusiv & Cult Div



Your institution retained the default comparison group (all module participants).

NSSE 2019 Inclusiveness & Engagement with DiversityAdministration Summary

Ithaca College

This module examines environments, processes, and activities that reflect the engagement and validation of cultural diversity and promote greater understanding of societal differences. Questions explore students’ exposure to inclusive teaching practices and intercultural learning; perceptions of institutional values and commitment regarding diversity; and participation in diversity-related programming and coursework. Complementary FSSE set available.

This section summarizes how this module's comparison group was identified, including selection criteria and whether the default option was taken. This is followed by the resulting list of institutions represented in the 'Inclusiv & Cult Div' column of this report.

of 75

*2018 participant

2 • NSSE 2019 TOPICAL MODULE REPORT

Inclusiv & Cult Div (N=180), continuedIndiana University South Bend (South Bend, IN)* Seton Hall University (South Orange, NJ)Iona College (New Rochelle, NY) Seton Hill University (Greensburg, PA)Jacksonville University (Jacksonville, FL)* Shenandoah University (Winchester, VA)Kalamazoo College (Kalamazoo, MI) Shepherd University (Shepherdstown, WV)Kansas State University (Manhattan, KS) Simmons University (Boston, MA)Lamar University (Beaumont, TX) South Dakota State University (Brookings, SD)*Lasell College (Newton, MA)* St. John Fisher College (Rochester, NY)Lawrence University (Appleton, WI) St. Louis College of Pharmacy (Saint Louis, MO)LIM College (New York, NY) St. Mary's College of Maryland (St. Mary's City, MD)Lindenwood University (Saint Charles, MO)* Stonehill College (Easton, MA)Lipscomb University (Nashville, TN) Suffolk University (Boston, MA)Louisiana State University-Shreveport (Shreveport, LA)* Tarleton State University (Stephenville, TX)Lourdes University (Sylvania, OH)* Temple University (Philadelphia, PA)Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL)* Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi (Corpus Christi, TX)Marian University (Indianapolis, IN) Texas A&M University San Antonio (San Antonio, TX)Marist College (Poughkeepsie, NY)* Texas Lutheran University (Seguin, TX)*Marshall University (Huntington, WV)* Texas Tech University (Lubbock, TX)Mary Baldwin University (Staunton, VA)* Trent University (Peterborough, ON)Marywood University (Scranton, PA) Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)Methodist College (Peoria, IL)* Tulane University (New Orleans, LA)*Miami University-Oxford (Oxford, OH) Union College (Schenectady, NY)*Minnesota State University Moorhead (Moorhead, MN) United States Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point, NY)Minnesota State University, Mankato (Mankato, MN)* University of Alabama, The (Tuscaloosa, AL)Missouri Western State University (Saint Joseph, MO) University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR)Mount St. Joseph University (Cincinnati, OH)* University of Central Arkansas (Conway, AR)*Muskingum University (New Concord, OH)* University of Central Oklahoma (Edmond, OK)*Naropa University (Boulder, CO) University of Colorado Denver (Denver, CO)Nazareth College (Rochester, NY) University of Hartford (West Hartford, CT)North Carolina Central University (Durham, NC)* University of Illinois Springfield (Springfield, IL)*Northeastern University (Boston, MA)* University of Indianapolis (Indianapolis, IN)Northern Michigan University (Marquette, MI)* University of La Verne (La Verne, CA)Northland College (Ashland, WI)* University of Louisiana Monroe (Monroe, LA)*Northwest Missouri State University (Maryville, MO) University of Lynchburg (Lynchburg, VA)*Ohio State University at Newark, The (Newark, OH) University of Miami (Coral Gables, FL)*Ohio Wesleyan University (Delaware, OH) University of Missouri (Columbia, MO)Oklahoma State University (Stillwater, OK)* University of Missouri-Kansas City (Kansas City, MO)Pennsylvania College of Technology (Williamsport, PA)* University of Nebraska at Lincoln (Lincoln, NE)Pepperdine University (Malibu, CA) University of North Carolina at Greensboro, The (Greensboro, NC)*Presbyterian College (Clinton, SC) University of North Carolina Wilmington (Wilmington, NC)Purdue University Fort Wayne (Fort Wayne, IN) University of Northern Iowa (Cedar Falls, IA)*Queen's University (Kingston, ON) University of San Diego (San Diego, CA)*Quinnipiac University (Hamden, CT)* University of South Alabama (Mobile, AL)*Radford University (Radford, VA) University of South Dakota (Vermillion, SD)*Ramapo College of New Jersey (Mahwah, NJ)* University of the Incarnate Word (San Antonio, TX)Rider University (Lawrenceville, NJ) University of Utah (Salt Lake City, UT)*Robert Morris University (Moon Township, PA)* University of Washington Tacoma (Tacoma, WA)Rochester College (Rochester Hills, MI)* University of Wisconsin-Green Bay (Green Bay, WI)Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY) University of Wyoming (Laramie, WY)Rockhurst University (Kansas City, MO)* Utah Valley University (Orem, UT)*Rowan University (Glassboro, NJ) Utica College (Utica, NY)*Rutgers University-Newark (Newark, NJ)* Valley City State University (Valley City, ND)Saint Joseph's College (Standish, ME)* Vanguard University of Southern California (Costa Mesa, CA)*Saint Mary's University of Minnesota (Winona, MN) Warner Pacific University (Portland, OR)*Sam Houston State University (Huntsville, TX) Washington & Jefferson College (Washington, PA)Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA)* Washington College (Chestertown, MD)Scripps College (Claremont, CA)* Wesleyan College, Macon, Georgia (Macon, GA)Seattle Pacific University (Seattle, WA) Western Carolina University (Cullowhee, NC)*Seattle University (Seattle, WA) Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)

of 75

*2018 participant NSSE 2019 TOPICAL MODULE REPORT • 3

Inclusiv & Cult Div (N=180), continuedWilliam Jewell College (Liberty, MO)Wilson College (Chambersburg, PA)*Wisconsin Lutheran College (Milwaukee, WI)Youngstown State University (Youngstown, OH)*

of 75

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Refer to the endnotes page for the key to triangle symbols.


First-Year Students

IC

Item wording or description Values c Response options Count % Count % Mean

Effect size d

a. 1 Very little 61 11 5,518 13

2 Some 206 38 15,176 34

3 Quite a bit 185 34 16,268 36 2.5 2.6 -.034 Very much 86 16 7,831 17

Total 538 100 44,793 100b. 1 Very little 54 11 5,237 13

2 Some 183 34 14,163 32

3 Quite a bit 179 33 16,863 37 2.7 2.6 .064 Very much 121 22 8,538 18

Total 537 100 44,801 100c. 1 Very little 26 6 2,902 7

2 Some 126 23 12,579 29

3 Quite a bit 268 50 19,266 43 2.9 2.8 * .094 Very much 118 21 10,034 22

Total 538 100 44,781 100d. 1 Very little 91 17 7,972 18

2 Some 202 38 14,943 34


Total 538 100 44,760 100e. 1 Very little 80 15 6,035 14

2 Some 189 35 15,346 35


Total 538 100 44,785 100f. 1 Very little 64 13 7,006 17

2 Some 169 31 14,423 33

3 Quite a bit 184 34 14,746 32 2.7 2.5 *** .144 Very much 120 22 8,599 18

Total 537 100 44,774 100g. 1 Very little 37 7 3,566 9

2 Some 141 26 12,303 28


Total 539 100 44,795 100

a. 1 Very little 22 4 2,488 6

2 Some 142 26 10,813 25



2 Some 161 29 12,324 28


Total 538 100 44,691 100

Recognizing your own cultural norms and biases

ICD01b

NSSE 2019 Inclusiveness & Engagement with DiversityFrequencies and Statistical Comparisons

Ithaca College

Frequency Distributionsa Statistical Comparisonsb

ICInclusiv & Cult

Div Inclusiv & Cult Div

Variable name Mean

1. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following?Developing the skills necessary to work effectively with people from various backgrounds

ICD01a

Demonstrating a commitment to diversity

ICD02a

Sharing your own perspectives and experiences

ICD01c

Exploring your own background through projects, assignments, or programs

ICD01d

Learning about other cultures ICD01e

Discussing issues of equity or privilege

ICD01f

Respecting the expression of diverse ideas

ICD01g

2. How much does your institution emphasize the following?

Providing students with the resources needed for success in a multicultural world

ICD02b

of 75

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Refer to the endnotes page for the key to triangle symbols. NSSE 2019 TOPICAL MODULE REPORT • 5

First-Year Students

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

c. 1 Very little 25 5 2,335 5

2 Some 158 29 10,162 23

3 Quite a bit 223 42 18,485 41 2.9 3.0 * -.114 Very much 132 24 13,733 30 ▽


2 Some 111 21 9,770 22



2 Some 86 16 10,676 24



2 Some 95 17 9,178 21

3 Quite a bit 217 41 18,004 40 3.2 3.0 ** .144 Very much 207 39 15,278 34


2 Some 147 27 12,434 28


Total 536 100 44,595 100

a. 1 Very little 13 2 1,619 4

2 Some 125 22 9,216 21



2 Some 62 11 9,772 22

3 Quite a bit 183 34 17,308 39 3.4 3.0 *** .454 Very much 288 53 15,237 34 ▲


2 Some 202 36 12,890 29

3 Quite a bit 179 34 16,049 36 2.6 2.8 *** -.224 Very much 92 19 11,680 26 ▽


2 Some 228 42 14,783 33

3 Quite a bit 132 25 15,102 34 2.3 2.7 *** -.374 Very much 70 13 9,560 22 ▼

Total 536 100 44,556 100

Creating an overall sense of community among students

ICD02c

Ensuring that you are not stigmatized because of your identity (racial/ethnic, gender, religious, sexual oreintation, etc.)

ICD02d

Economic background ICD03c

Providing information about anti‐discrimination and harassment policies

ICD02e

Taking allegations of discrimination or harassment seriously

ICD02f

Helping students develop the skills to confront discrimination and harassment

ICD02g

3. How much does your institution provide a supportive environment for the following forms of diversity?Racial/ethnic identity ICD03a

Gender identity ICD03b

Political affiliation ICD03d

of 75



First-Year Students

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

e. 1 Very little 25 5 3,040 7

2 Some 168 31 11,653 26



2 Some 62 11 10,349 24



2 Some 201 37 11,124 25


Total 536 100 44,603 100

a. 1 Strongly disagree 1 0 732 2

2 Disagree 29 6 3,049 7

3 Agree 287 54 22,256 49 3.3 3.3 .054 Strongly agree 217 40 18,583 42

Total 534 100 44,620 100b. 1 Strongly disagree 8 1 1,360 3

2 Disagree 72 13 6,808 16


Total 535 100 44,605 100c. 1 Strongly disagree 8 1 1,501 4

2 Disagree 82 15 7,171 16


Total 536 100 44,631 100

a. 1 Never 69 13 8,742 22

2 Sometimes 239 45 17,910 40

3 Often 154 28 12,115 26 2.4 2.3 *** .154 Very often 75 14 5,805 13

Total 537 100 44,572 100b. 1 Never 188 35 19,334 46

2 Sometimes 225 42 14,095 30

3 Often 83 15 7,211 16 1.9 1.9 * .084 Very often 41 8 3,844 8

Total 537 100 44,484 100c. 1 Never 281 53 24,591 57

2 Sometimes 146 27 10,700 23

3 Often 67 13 5,760 13 1.7 1.7 .044 Very often 37 7 3,261 7

Total 531 100 44,312 100

Religious affiliation ICD03e

Sexual orientation ICD03f

Participated in the activities of centers related to specific groups (racial-ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, LGBT, etc.)

ICD05b_18

Disability status ICD03g

4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?I feel comfortable being myself at this institution.

ICD04a_18

I feel valued by this institution. ICD04b_18

I feel like part of the community at this institution.

ICD04c_18

5. During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?Attended events, activities, or presentations that reflect an appreciation for diverse groups of people

ICD05a_18

Participated in a diversity-related club or organization

ICD05c_18

of 75


First-Year Students

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

d. 1 Never 339 65 31,199 71

2 Sometimes 126 23 7,546 16

3 Often 39 7 3,779 9 1.5 1.5 .084 Very often 24 5 1,761 4

Total 528 100 44,285 100e. 1 Never 123 23 12,549 30

2 Sometimes 210 39 16,607 37

3 Often 125 23 9,923 22 2.3 2.2 *** .144 Very often 78 15 5,388 12

Total 536 100 44,467 100

Participated in a demonstration for a diversity-related cause (rally, protest, etc.)

ICD05d_18

Reflected on your cultural identity ICD05e_18

of 75



Seniors

IC


Effect size d

a. 1 Very little 41 11 6,292 12

2 Some 121 32 15,657 28



2 Some 111 29 15,039 27



2 Some 86 22 13,440 24



2 Some 119 31 16,134 29



2 Some 156 40 17,173 30



2 Some 114 29 15,782 28



2 Some 95 23 13,394 24


Total 389 100 56,404 100

a. 1 Very little 30 8 3,814 7

2 Some 108 27 13,729 24

3 Quite a bit 153 40 21,285 38 2.8 2.9 * -.114 Very much 98 25 17,497 31 ▽


2 Some 151 38 16,757 30


Total 389 100 56,296 100

Recognizing your own cultural norms and biases

ICD01b


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

1. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following?Developing the skills necessary to work effectively with people from various backgrounds

ICD01a

Demonstrating a commitment to diversity

ICD02a

Sharing your own perspectives and experiences

ICD01c

Exploring your own background through projects, assignments, or programs

ICD01d

Learning about other cultures ICD01e

Discussing issues of equity or privilege

ICD01f

Respecting the expression of diverse ideas

ICD01g

2. How much does your institution emphasize the following?

Providing students with the resources needed for success in a multicultural world

ICD02b

of 75


Seniors

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

c. 1 Very little 33 9 4,497 8

2 Some 141 36 14,687 26



2 Some 127 31 13,924 25



2 Some 112 28 14,651 26



2 Some 113 28 12,976 23

3 Quite a bit 155 40 20,358 36 2.8 2.9 ** -.154 Very much 88 23 17,771 32 ▽


2 Some 142 36 17,286 30


Total 389 100 56,080 100

a. 1 Very little 23 6 3,341 6

2 Some 152 39 14,170 25



2 Some 81 20 14,524 26



2 Some 178 46 17,655 31



2 Some 163 41 19,737 35


Total 388 100 56,011 100

Creating an overall sense of community among students

ICD02c

Ensuring that you are not stigmatized because of your identity (racial/ethnic, gender, religious, sexual oreintation, etc.)

ICD02d

Economic background ICD03c

Providing information about anti‐discrimination and harassment policies

ICD02e

Taking allegations of discrimination or harassment seriously

ICD02f

Helping students develop the skills to confront discrimination and harassment

ICD02g

3. How much does your institution provide a supportive environment for the following forms of diversity?Racial/ethnic identity ICD03a

Gender identity ICD03b

Political affiliation ICD03d

of 75



Seniors

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

e. 1 Very little 37 10 5,738 11

2 Some 168 42 17,146 30



2 Some 68 17 15,129 27



2 Some 138 35 15,306 27


Total 389 100 56,047 100

a. 1 Strongly disagree 8 2 1,189 2

2 Disagree 25 7 3,425 6

3 Agree 192 49 25,592 45 3.3 3.4 -.084 Strongly agree 164 42 25,994 47

Total 389 100 56,200 100b. 1 Strongly disagree 19 5 3,308 6

2 Disagree 64 17 9,635 17


Total 387 100 56,179 100c. 1 Strongly disagree 16 5 2,842 6

2 Disagree 70 19 9,935 18

3 Agree 204 51 27,203 48 3.0 3.0 -.034 Strongly agree 99 25 16,190 29

Total 389 100 56,170 100

a. 1 Never 49 13 16,050 31

2 Sometimes 186 48 21,642 37

3 Often 116 29 12,095 21 2.4 2.1 *** .254 Very often 37 10 6,340 11

Total 388 100 56,127 100b. 1 Never 126 33 27,109 51

2 Sometimes 169 43 17,063 29

3 Often 63 16 7,420 13 2.0 1.8 *** .204 Very often 28 7 4,439 8

Total 386 100 56,031 100c. 1 Never 186 48 32,824 61

2 Sometimes 121 31 12,641 21

3 Often 45 11 6,114 11 1.8 1.6 *** .184 Very often 37 9 4,255 7

Total 389 100 55,834 100

Religious affiliation ICD03e

Sexual orientation ICD03f

Participated in the activities of centers related to specific groups (racial-ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, LGBT, etc.)

ICD05b_18

Disability status ICD03g

4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?I feel comfortable being myself at this institution.

ICD04a_18

I feel valued by this institution. ICD04b_18

I feel like part of the community at this institution.

ICD04c_18

5. During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?Attended events, activities, or presentations that reflect an appreciation for diverse groups of people

ICD05a_18

Participated in a diversity-related club or organization

ICD05c_18

of 75


Seniors

IC


Effect size d


Ithaca College


ICInclusiv & Cult


Variable name Mean

d. 1 Never 188 50 39,342 72

2 Sometimes 135 34 9,829 17

3 Often 47 12 4,134 7 1.7 1.4 *** .324 Very often 15 4 2,417 4 ▲

Total 385 100 55,722 100e. 1 Never 55 15 14,666 28

2 Sometimes 154 40 20,118 35

3 Often 86 22 12,712 22 2.5 2.2 *** .304 Very often 93 23 8,547 15

Total 388 100 56,043 100

Participated in a demonstration for a diversity-related cause (rally, protest, etc.)

ICD05d_18

Reflected on your cultural identity ICD05e_18

of 75

See the endnotes on the last page of this report.


First-Year Students

N DFh Sig.iEffect

sized

ICD01a 535 2.58 .038 .003 0.89 0.92 72,907 .428 -.03

ICD01b 533 2.61 .041 .003 0.94 0.93 72,908 .171 .06

ICD01c 535 2.79 .035 .003 0.81 0.86 543 .031 .09

ICD01d 535 2.46 .040 .004 0.93 0.97 72,875 .278 -.05

ICD01e 535 2.55 .041 .004 0.95 0.94 72,909 .501 -.03

ICD01f 534 2.52 .041 .004 0.96 0.98 72,872 .001 .14

ICD01g 536 2.78 .038 .003 0.87 0.90 544 .204 .05

ICD02a 535 2.93 .036 .003 0.84 0.87 72,850 .456 .03

ICD02b 535 2.84 .036 .003 0.84 0.88 72,754 .192 -.06

ICD02c 535 2.96 .036 .003 0.83 0.86 72,783 .013 -.11

ICD02d 533 2.98 .038 .003 0.87 0.88 72,741 .019 .10

ICD02e 535 2.93 .035 .003 0.82 0.89 543 .000 .19

ICD02f 534 3.04 .035 .003 0.81 0.86 72,609 .001 .14

ICD02g 533 2.80 .038 .003 0.87 0.92 540 .113 .07

ICD03a 534 3.06 .035 .003 0.80 0.84 72,581 .700 -.02

ICD03b 535 3.01 .031 .003 0.73 0.88 72,554 .000 .45

ICD03c 534 2.80 .040 .003 0.91 0.93 72,462 .000 -.22

ICD03d 533 2.66 .041 .004 0.94 0.94 72,519 .000 -.37

ICD03e 532 2.88 .037 .003 0.85 0.91 72,513 .356 -.04

ICD03f 534 2.96 .032 .003 0.74 0.90 545 .000 .50

ICD03g 533 2.92 .043 .003 0.99 0.91 539 .000 -.39

ICD04a_18 530 3.31 .026 .00 0.59 0.68 540 .218 .05

ICD04b_18 532 3.05 .028 .00 0.65 0.75 541 .259 .04

ICD04c_18 533 3.05 .029 .00 0.68 0.77 542 .527 .02

ICD05a_18 534 2.30 .039 .00 0.89 0.94 72,535 .001 .15

ICD05b_18 534 1.87 .039 .00 0.90 0.97 542 .038 .08

ICD05c_18 528 1.70 .041 .00 0.93 0.94 72,105 .309 .04

ICD05d_18 525 1.45 .036 .00 0.83 0.81 72,051 .061 .08

ICD05e_18 533 2.15 .043 .00 0.98 0.98 72,376 .001 .14

NSSE 2019 Inclusiveness & Engagement with DiversityDetailed Statisticse

Ithaca College

Mean Standard errorfStandard deviationg

Variable name IC IC Inclusiv & Cult Div IC

2.96

IC Inclusiv & Cult Div

Comparisons with:

Inclusiv & Cult Div

2.55

2.67

Inclusiv & Cult Div

2.86

2.41

2.52

2.66

2.83

3.42

2.79

2.87

3.07

3.10

3.16

2.86

3.05

3.40

2.60

2.31

2.84

1.74

1.52

2.29

2.56

3.34

3.08

3.07

2.44

1.95

of 75

See the endnotes on the last page of this report. NSSE 2019 TOPICAL MODULE REPORT • 13

Seniors

N DFh Sig.iEffect

sized

ICD01a 386 2.74 .048 .003 0.94 0.97 77,856 .291 -.05

ICD01b 385 2.68 .046 .004 0.90 1.01 388 .019 .11

ICD01c 388 2.85 .043 .003 0.85 0.93 391 .020 .11

ICD01d 388 2.54 .050 .004 0.98 1.03 391 .861 .01

ICD01e 386 2.57 .047 .004 0.92 1.02 390 .128 -.07

ICD01f 387 2.52 .051 .004 1.00 1.07 390 .000 .22

ICD01g 388 2.81 .046 .004 0.92 0.98 392 .191 .06

ICD02a 388 2.92 .046 .003 0.90 0.91 77,700 .032 -.11

ICD02b 388 2.77 .044 .003 0.87 0.93 77,649 .000 -.25

ICD02c 388 2.84 .044 .003 0.86 0.92 77,622 .000 -.25

ICD02d 388 2.87 .046 .003 0.91 0.94 77,578 .054 -.10

ICD02e 388 2.84 .046 .003 0.90 0.94 77,543 .067 -.09

ICD02f 388 2.91 .046 .003 0.90 0.95 77,403 .004 -.15

ICD02g 388 2.65 .047 .004 0.92 0.99 392 .001 -.17

ICD03a 385 2.94 .043 .003 0.84 0.90 77,312 .000 -.27

ICD03b 387 2.88 .040 .003 0.79 0.93 391 .000 .24

ICD03c 388 2.68 .045 .004 0.89 0.97 391 .000 -.47

ICD03d 388 2.53 .046 .004 0.90 0.98 391 .000 -.52

ICD03e 387 2.73 .041 .003 0.81 0.95 392 .000 -.25

ICD03f 388 2.84 .042 .003 0.83 0.94 392 .000 .33

ICD03g 388 2.83 .049 .003 0.97 0.95 77,220 .000 -.64

ICD04a_18 388 3.36 .035 .00 0.69 0.70 77,469 .135 -.08

ICD04b_18 387 2.99 .041 .00 0.80 0.84 77,464 .931 .00

ICD04c_18 388 3.00 .040 .00 0.79 0.83 77,427 .540 -.03

ICD05a_18 387 2.12 .042 .00 0.83 0.97 391 .000 .25

ICD05b_18 385 1.78 .045 .00 0.89 0.95 389 .000 .20

ICD05c_18 388 1.65 .049 .00 0.97 0.94 76,966 .001 .18

ICD05d_18 384 1.44 .042 .00 0.83 0.81 387 .000 .32

ICD05e_18 388 2.24 .051 .00 1.01 1.02 77,272 .000 .30

NSSE 2019 Inclusiveness & Engagement with DiversityDetailed Statisticse

Ithaca College

Mean Standard errorfStandard deviationg

Variable name IC IC Inclusiv & Cult Div IC

2.82

IC Inclusiv & Cult Div

Comparisons with:

Inclusiv & Cult Div

2.69

2.78

Inclusiv & Cult Div

2.96

2.55

2.50

2.76

2.87

3.15

2.54

2.62

2.78

2.75

2.78

2.49

2.69

3.10

2.22

2.02

2.49

1.81

1.69

2.54

2.22

3.31

2.99

2.98

2.36

1.97

of 75


Endnotesa.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f. The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus or minus 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.

g. A measure of the amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

h. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t -tests. Values differ from Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.

i.

j.

k.

Key to symbols:

▲ 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.

▽ 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.

NSSE 2019 Inclusiveness & Engagement with DiversityEndnotes

Ithaca College

Column percentages are weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups). Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Counts are unweighted; column percentages cannot be replicated from counts.

Note: It is important to interpret the direction of differences relative to item wording and your institutional context.

Statistical comparison uses z- test to compare the proportion who responded (depending on the item) "Done or in progress" or "Yes" with all who responded otherwise.

Mean represents the proportion who responded (depending on the item) “Done or in progress” or "Yes."

All statistics are weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups). Unless otherwise noted, statistical comparisons are two-tailed independent t -tests. Items with categorical response sets are left blank.

These are the values used to calculate means. For the majority of items, these values match the codes in the data file and codebook.

Effect size for independent t- tests uses Cohen's d ; z- tests use Cohen's h .

Statistics are weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups). Categorical items are not listed.

Statistical comparisons are two-tailed independent t -tests or z -tests. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between your students' mean and that of the students in the comparison group is due to chance.

of 75

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2019: Excerpts … · 953 Danby Road • •Ithaca, NY...

Documents

Transcript of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2019: Excerpts … · 953 Danby Road • •Ithaca, NY...