Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.

Selected Results of NSSE 2003:Selected Results of NSSE 2003:

University of KentuckyUniversity of Kentucky

December 3, 2003December 3, 2003

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

Why is student engagement important? The National Survey of Student Engagement

(NSSE) What do we know about the engagement of UK

students? The five benchmarks of good practice Other important findings Ways to enhance student engagement

What What ReallyReally Matters in College: Matters in College:

Student EngagementStudent EngagementThe research is unequivocal: students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are not so involved

Pascarella & Terenzini. (1991). Pascarella & Terenzini. (1991). How college affects studentsHow college affects students

Good Educational PracticesGood Educational Practices

Student-faculty contact Active learning Prompt feedback Time on task High expectations Cooperation among students Respect for diverse talents

and ways of learning

“Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education” (Chickering and Gamson, 1987)

What is Student Engagement?What is Student Engagement?

Represents two important aspects of collegiate quality:

– The amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other meaningful academic activities

– How the institution deploys resources and organizes its curriculum and other learning opportunities

Correlates with student learning and retention

What is the NSSE?What is the NSSE?(pronounced “nessie”)(pronounced “nessie”)

Refocuses conversations about quality in undergraduate education

Assesses students’ engagement in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and personal development

Provide systematic national data on “good educational practices”

Enhances institutional improvement efforts

What is Covered inWhat is Covered inThe College Student ReportThe College Student Report??

Student Behaviors in College

Institutional Actions & Requirements

Student Reactions to College

Student BackgroundInformation

Student Learning &

Development

NSSE 2003 Respondent CharacteristicsNSSE 2003 Respondent Characteristics

UK NSSE 2003Response rate 34% 43%

Mode

Paper

Web

F 56%; S 79%

F 44%; S 21%

F 42%; S 55%

F 58%; S 45%

No. of Students 626 93,393

Sampling Error

Freshmen

Seniors

+/- 5.4%

+/- 5.3%

+/- 0.4%

+/- 0.4%

What Do We Know AboutWhat Do We Know AboutCollege Student Engagement?College Student Engagement?

What percent of UK students participate in community service or volunteer work on a weekly basis?

First-Year Seniors 30% 39%


What percent of UK students spent more than 20 hours per week preparing for class?



What percent of UK students spent more than 5 hours per week participating in co-curricular activities?


Five Benchmarks of Effective Five Benchmarks of Effective Educational PracticeEducational Practice

Clusters of related activities, institutional actions, attitudes, and perceptions– Level of academic challenge– Active and collaborative learning– Student-faculty interaction– Enriching educational experiences– Supportive campus environment

The results for 2001 and 2003 compare UK first-year students and seniors with peers at other doctoral research extensive institutions– ‘Absolute’ level of engagement (raw benchmark scores)– ‘Predicted’ level of engagement (statistically controlling for

institutional and student characteristics)

I. Level of Academic ChallengeI. Level of Academic Challenge

Items on this benchmark include:Level of preparation for classNumber of assigned booksNumber of written papers of varying lengthTypes of cognitive demands emphasized by

coursework

Level of Academic ChallengeLevel of Academic Challenge

51.6 51.4 53.1 54.6 52.2 52.3 55.0 55.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

First-Year Senior First-Year Senior

UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Observations about the Observations about the Academic Challenge BenchmarkAcademic Challenge Benchmark

UK first-year students and seniors scored near the 50th percentile on this benchmark

Relative to their peers, UK freshmen: – Report spending more time preparing two or more

drafts of an assignment

– write significantly more short and mid-length papers than their KY peers

Relative to their peers, UK seniors reported fewer numbers of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Level of Academic Challenge Level of Academic Challenge

Students’ Class

Actual Score

Predicted Score

Residual

Standardized Residual

First-Year

52.2* 50.5 1.7 0.6

Senior 54.4* 52.9 1.5 0.5

*Note: The ‘actual’ benchmark scores in the above chart may differ slightly those reported in the NSSE Benchmark Report and the accompanying graph. The Benchmark Report scores are adjusted according to students’ enrollment status. This adjustment is not reflected in the actual scores in the chart because it was included in the regression model used to generate the predicted scores.

II. Active and II. Active and Collaborative LearningCollaborative Learning

Items on this benchmark include:Contributions to class discussionsClass presentationsWork with other students on projectsFrequency of discussions about readings

outside of class

Active and Collaborative LearningActive and Collaborative Learning

35.6 37.5

44.8 45.8

35.1 38.146.2 46.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Observations about Observations about Active and Collaborative LearningActive and Collaborative Learning

Between 2001 and 2003, the gap between UK freshmen and their peers widened slightly

Freshmen scored between the 10th and 20th percentiles and seniors scores at the 50th percentile

Relative to their peers, UK freshmen:– Collaborated less with their classmates outside of class– Participated less in community-based projects as part of a

regular course Both UK freshmen and seniors were less likely than their

peers to discuss ideas from readings outside of class UK seniors reported more in-class collaboration on projects

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Active and Collaborative Learning Active and Collaborative Learning

Students’ Class

Actual Score

Predicted Score

Residual


First-Year

35.1 37.0 -1.8 -0.5

Senior 46.2 45.8 0.4 0.1

III. Student Interaction with III. Student Interaction with Faculty MembersFaculty Members

Items on this benchmark include:Frequency of discussions with faculty on:

– grades– assignments– career plans – readings

Promptness of feedbackParticipation in research projects

Student-Faculty InteractionStudent-Faculty Interaction

33.6 31.6

39.1 38.434.4 34.0

41.5 39.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Observations about Observations about Student-Faculty InteractionStudent-Faculty Interaction

UK freshmen and seniors scored well above students from other doctoral/research ext. institutions—between the 60th and 70th percentiles—in 2001 and 2003

UK freshmen reported fewer experiences working with faculty on research outside of class requirements

UK freshmen and seniors reported more frequent discussions of career plans with a faculty member of advisor

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Student-Faculty InteractionStudent-Faculty Interaction

Students’ Class

Actual Score

Predicted Score

Residual


First-Year

34.4 33.1 1.3 0.3

Senior 41.5 39.1 2.4 0.6

IV. Enriching Educational IV. Enriching Educational ExperiencesExperiences

Items on this benchmark include:Participation in co-curricular activitiesInvolvement in community serviceParticipation in internships and co-opsEnrollment in capstone coursesStudy abroad

Enriching Educational Enriching Educational ExperiencesExperiences

50.455.3

42.545.9

51.457.6

46.7 47.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Observations about the Enriching Observations about the Enriching Educational Experiences BenchmarkEducational Experiences Benchmark

In 2001 and 2003, UK students scored well below their peers from the KY consortium and research universities

Freshmen scored below the 10th percentile and seniors scored just below the 50th percentile

The poor performance of UK freshmen can be traced to several questions about diversity

UK first-year students reported: – their school placed less emphasis on contact among students from

different backgrounds than other research universities– less frequent conversations with students of different religious

beliefs, political opinions, or personal values Both UK freshmen and seniors reported fewer serious

conversations with students of different races and ethnicities

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Enriching Educational Experiences Enriching Educational Experiences

Students’ Class

Actual Score

Predicted Score

Residual


First-Year

51.4 53.7 -2.3 -0.6

Senior 46.7 45.9 0.8 0.2

V. Supportive Campus V. Supportive Campus EnvironmentEnvironment

Items on this benchmark include:Perceived support to succeed academicallyPerceived support to thrive sociallyPerceived quality of relationships with:

– Other students– Faculty– Administrators

Supportive Campus EnvironmentSupportive Campus Environment

53.356.1

48.3 51.2

59.0 58.053.7 53.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

2001 Observations about the Supportive 2001 Observations about the Supportive Campus Environment BenchmarkCampus Environment Benchmark

Two years ago, UK students’ evaluations were well below their counterparts

In 2003, freshmen scored above the 60th percentile and senior scored above the 50th percentile

On most benchmark items, UK students’ ratings did not differ significantly from their peers

Both freshmen and seniors assigned higher ratings to the quality of their relationships with administrative personnel and offices.

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Supportive Campus Environment Supportive Campus Environment

Students’ Class

Actual Score

Predicted Score

Residual


First-Year

59.0 57.6 1.4 0.4

Senior 53.7 52.7 1.0 0.2

Number of NSSE Benchmarks on Which Number of NSSE Benchmarks on Which UK Students Exceeded the Predicted Score UK Students Exceeded the Predicted Score

2001 and 20032001 and 2003

Students’ Class

2001 Exceeded/Total

2003 Exceeded/Total

First-Year 2/5 3/5

Seniors 1/5 5/5

Quality of Academic AdvisingQuality of Academic Advising

2.992.77 2.69

2.60

3.052.91

2.71 2.71

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Satisfaction with Entire Satisfaction with Entire Educational ExperienceEducational Experience

3.06 3.162.97

3.15 3.13 3.213.05

3.18

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


UK Doc.-Ext 2001 2003

Perceived Institutional Contributions to Personal Development Perceived Institutional Contributions to Personal Development Means Scores of UK and Doctoral Research-Ext. FreshmenMeans Scores of UK and Doctoral Research-Ext. Freshmen

2.03

2.42

2.37

2.58

2.28

2.56

2.56

2.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Contributing to the welfare of yourcommunity

Developing a personal code of valuesand ethics

Understanding people of otherracial/ethnic backgrounds

Understanding yourself

UK Freshmen Doc.-Ext Freshmen

Where do we go from here . . .?Where do we go from here . . .?

Areas of FocusAreas of Focus Increase the level of active and collaborative

learning on campus– Develop more community-based projects as part of

regular courses– Have students work together on projects outside of class

Focus on enriching educational experiences– Admit more diverse students– Encourage interaction among diverse student groups– Promote study abroad programs, living learning

communities, and undergraduate research outside of class or program requirements

Enhance the overall academic climate on campus by creating higher expectations for student performance

Institutional Institutional ImprovementImprovement

11stst Year Year & Senior & Senior

ExperienceExperience

GeneralGeneralAssessmentAssessment

StudentStudentAffairsAffairs

LearningLearningCommunitiesCommunities

Faculty Faculty DevelopmtDevelopmt

InstitutionalInstitutionalResearchResearch

EnrollmentEnrollment ManagemtManagemt

PeerPeerComparisonComparison

AcademicAcademicAdvisingAdvising

AcademicAcademicAffairsAffairs

RecommendationsRecommendations

Colleges should ‘drill down’ into the NSSE data to evaluate their students’ levels of engagement

Appoint an institution-wide NSSE taskforce charged with:– Learning how other institutions have used

NSSE results for improvement– Developing university-wide initiatives to

address our own shortcomings

Questions and Comments?Questions and Comments?

Office of Institutional Office of Institutional ResearchResearch

Roger Sugarman, [email protected]

Phone: 257-7989www.uky.edu/IR/

For more information on NSSE:

Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.

Documents

Transcript of Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.