The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Results & Recommendations Presented by: November, 2005 S. J. Sethi, Ph.D.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
Advertisements

Gary Whisenand Director, Institutional Research August 26, 2011.
Gallaudet Institutional Research Report: Annual Campus Climate Survey: 2010 Pat Hulsebosch: Executive Director – Office of Academic Quality Faculty Senate.
Prepared by: Fawn Skarsten Director Institutional Analysis.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparisons of the survey results for UPRM Office of Institutional Research and Planning University of Puerto.
2003 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) SVC Office of Institutional Research Dr. Maureen Pettitt, Director Leslie Croot, M.S., Analyst.
Using the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement in Student Affairs Indiana State University.
You will be familiar with the five NSSE benchmarks and the survey items that make up each benchmark. You will be familiar with the comparison groups.
DATA UPDATES FACULTY PRESENTATION September 2009.
Indiana State University Assessment of General Education Objectives Using Indicators From National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Gallaudet University Results on National Survey of Student Engagement Office of Institutional Research August, 2007.
Student Engagement In Good Educational Practices Findings From the 2004 and 2007 National Surveys of Student Engagement Cathy Sanders Director of Assessment.
First Year & Senior Student Experiences The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2011 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies.
GGC and Student Engagement.  NSSE  Overall: 32%  First Year: 30%  Seniors: 33%  GGC  Overall: 28%  First Year: 26% (381)  Seniors: 38% (120)
Presentation to Student Affairs Directors November, 2010 Marcia Belcheir, Ph.D. Institutional Analysis, Assessment, & Reporting.
NSSE When?Spring, 2008 Who?Freshmen and Seniors random sample How?Electronic and Snail mail follow up Respondents?30% response rate 26% freshmen.
Mind the Gap: Overview of FSSE and BCSSE Jillian Kinzie NSSE.
1 Student Learning Assessment Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at understanding & improving student learning Formative Assessment – Ongoing feedback.
National Survey of Student Engagement University of Minnesota, Morris NSSE 2002.
National Survey of Student Engagement University of Minnesota, Morris NSSE 2004.
BENCHMARKING EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES What We’re Learning. What Lies Ahead.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Okanagan.
Report of the Results of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement William E. Knight and Jie Wu Office of Institutional Research Presentation to the Faculty.
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE 2014.
NSSE – Results & Connections Institutional Research & Academic Resources California State Polytechnic University, Pomona October 2, 2013 – Academic Senate.
Presentation of Results NSSE 2003 Florida Gulf Coast University Office of Planning and Institutional Performance.
Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.
1 N ational S urvey & F aculty S urvey of S tudent E ngagement (NSSE) & (FSSE) 2006 Wayne State University.
1 NSSE Columbus State University Program Overview  What do you know about college student engagement?  Why is student engagement important?
Student Engagement at Towson: NSSE 2005 Telling and Selling the Story Kathryn Doherty, Ed.D. January 11, 2006.
IUPUI Council on Retention and Graduation – October 13, 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement Understanding IUPUI Students: National Survey of Student.
Student Engagement at Northeastern Illinois Analysis and Use of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2009.
CCSSE 2013 Findings for Cuesta College San Luis Obispo County Community College District.
Note: CCSSE survey items included in benchmarks are listed at the end of this presentation 1. Active and Collaborative Learning Students learn more when.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Vancouver.
Gallaudet Institutional Research Report: National Survey of Student Engagement Pat Hulsebosch: Executive Director – Office of Academic Quality Faculty.
APSU 2009 National Survey of Student Engagement Patricia Mulkeen Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.
NSSE and the College of Letters and Sciences Chris Fastnow Office of Planning and Analysis November 7, 2008.
Primary Factors of Student Engagement at UTBTSC in 2002 Deborah Suzzane, Ph.D., Director Institutional Research & Planning.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
1 Presentation of Results NSSE 2005 Florida Gulf Coast University Office of Planning and Institutional Performance.
ESU’s NSSE 2013 Overview Joann Stryker Office of Institutional Research and Assessment University Senate, March 2014.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Missouri Valley College January 6, 2010.
CCSSE 2010: SVC Benchmark Data Note: Benchmark survey items are listed in the Appendix (slides 9-14)
BEAMS – Using NSSE Data: Understanding the Benchmark Reports.
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AT IU KOKOMO Administrative Council 26 September 2007.
NSSE 2005 CSUMB Report California State University at Monterey Bay Office of Institutional Effectiveness Office of Assessment and Research.
Looking Inside The “Oakland Experience” Another way to look at NSSE Data April 20, 2009.
SASSE South African Survey of Student Engagement Studente Ontwikkeling en Sukses Student Development and Success UNIVERSITEIT VAN DIE VRYSTAAT UNIVERSITY.
Student Engagement as Policy Direction: Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Skagit Valley College Board of Trustees Policy GP-4 – Education.
De Anza College 2009 Community College Survey of Student Engagement Presented to the Academic Senate February 28, 2011 Prepared by Mallory Newell Institutional.
Highlights of NSSE 2001: University of Kentucky December 10, 2001.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparison on the survey results at UPRM with peers Office of Institutional Research and Planning University.
Jennifer Ballard George Kuh September 19, Overview  NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement  Select Linfield results:  NSSE 2011  Brief explanation.
NSSE Working Student Study Assessment Day Presentation Office of Assessment Fitchburg State College.
1 NSSE Results Fort Lewis College (2010) Richard A. Miller Exec. Dir – OIRPA.
GGC and Student Engagement.  NSSE  Overall: 27% (down 5%)  First Year: 25% (down 5%)  Seniors: 28% (down 5%)  GGC  Overall: 35% (up 7%)  First.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 1 The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
The University of Texas-Pan American Susan Griffith, Ph.D. Executive Director National Survey of Student Engagement 2003 Results & Recommendations Presented.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2013 Presented by: November 2013 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
National Survey of Student Engagement Executive Snapshot 2007.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2014 Presented by: October 2014 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
The University of Texas-Pan American S. J. Sethi, Ph.D. Assistant Director Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness Faculty Survey of Student Engagement.
The University of Texas-Pan American
The University of Texas-Pan American
Director, Institutional Research
Faculty In-Service Week
Presentation transcript:

The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Results & Recommendations Presented by: November, 2005 S. J. Sethi, Ph.D. Assistant Director Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

Overview What is NSSE? Its Purpose and Uses What does Research Show? NSSE Survey Results for UTPA Recommendations

What is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)? (pronounced “nessie”)  National survey that assesses the extent to which first-year and senior students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development.  Supported by grants from Lumina Foundation for Education and the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.  Co-sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and The Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning.

Purpose of NSSE  Measure how well we are doing.  Provide a new way to look at teaching & learning.  Determine if student behavior and institutional practices are headed in the right direction.  Assist in measuring the extent to which the university advances polices and practices that encourage student learning and development.

Uses of NSSE Data  Inform legislators & accreditation teams on what we do best to promote student development.  Look into processes on campus that might lead to increased student engagement.  Foster institutional improvement initiatives.  Promote effective educational practices.  Zero in on factors that contribute to positive experience for students.

What does Research Show? “Students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those not so involved.” Pascarella and Terenzini, “How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research.” “Engagement is a critical factor in the educational process because the more time and energy students devote to desired activities, the more likely they are to develop the habits of the mind that are key to success after college.” George Kuh, NSSE director, Indiana University Bloomington.

Who Participated Nationally More than 750 different colleges/universities since states, DC, Puerto Rico and Canada 500+ institutions in 2005 Data from more than 560,000 students in 2005 Year Colleges/ Universities

6 Year Response Rates UTPA34%29%35%30%35%29% UT System---34%32%27% Master’s Institutions 42%43%39%42%36%35% NSSE Nationwide 42% 41%43%38%37%

NSSE Survey Results for UTPA 5 Areas of Effective Educational Practice Level of Academic Challenge Active and Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interactions Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment

Class preparation. Coursework emphasis on analysis, synthesis, making judgments, application of theories or concepts. Level of work necessary to meet instructor’s expectations. Campus emphasis on study time and academic work. Number of assigned textbooks, etc. Number of written papers of 20+ pages; 5-19 pages, 1-5 pages. Academic Challenge Cluster Questions Include:

Level of Academic Challenge: Score Comparisons UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNationalUTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational

Level of Academic Challenge: Score Comparisons Freshmen Seniors

Level of Academic Challenge: 2005 vs (Statistically significant differences between UTPA and other Master’s Level Institutions) Had fewer assigned textbooks & course readings Had fewer assigned textbooks & course readings (Freshmen only) Worked on more written papers or reports of 20 pages or more - Worked on fewer written papers or reports of 5-19 pages Worked on fewer written papers or reports of reports 5-19 pages (Freshmen only) Worked on fewer written papers or reports of less than 5 pages Worked on fewer written papers or reports of less than 5 pages (Freshmen only) Spent less time on preparing for class Spent less time on preparing for class (Freshmen only)

Class participation Class presentations Working with other students on projects Tutoring/teaching other students Participation in community-based project as part of course Discussion of ideas from readings/courses outside of class Active and Collaborative Learning Cluster Questions Include:

Active and Collaborative Learning: Score Comparisons UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational

Active and Collaborative Learning: Score Comparisons Freshmen Seniors

Active & Collaborative Learning: 2005 vs (Statistically significant differences between UTPA and other Master’s Level Institutions) Made more presentations in class (Seniors only) Made fewer presentations in class (Freshmen only) Asked fewer questions in class or contributed to class discussions - Participated less in a community- based project as part of a regular course (Freshmen only) Worked more with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Worked less with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (Freshmen only) Tutored or taught other students more (paid or voluntary) (Freshmen only) -

Student-Faculty Interaction Cluster Includes Questions on: Discussing grades/assignments with instructor Discussing career plans with faculty member/advisor Discussing class work with faculty outside of class Working with faculty on university activities other than coursework Receiving prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance Working with faculty on research project outside of course requirements

Student-Faculty Interaction: Score Comparisons UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNationalUTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational

Student-Faculty Interaction: Score Comparisons Freshmen Seniors

Student Faculty Interaction: 2005 vs (Statistically significant differences between UTPA and other Master’s Level Institutions) More students discussed grades or assignments with an instructor (Freshmen only) - Students do not receive prompt feedback from faculty on their academic performance - Work significantly less with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, student life activities, etc.) (Seniors only) Fewer students use to communicate with an instructor (Seniors only) Fewer students use to communicate with an instructor

Enriching Educational Experiences Cluster Includes Questions on: Co-curricular activities Practicum, internship, clinical assignment, etc. Community service, volunteer Foreign language, study abroad Independent study, self-designed major Culminating senior experience Conversations with students of different beliefs, ethnicity Use of electronic technology to discuss/complete assignments Campus environment that encourages contact among students of different backgrounds.

Enriching Educational Experiences: Score Comparisons UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational

Enriching Educational Experiences: Score Comparisons Freshmen Seniors

Enriching Educational Experiences: 2005 vs Had fewer serious conversations with students of a different race/ethnicity Had fewer serious conversations with students of a different race/ethnicity (Freshmen only) Had fewer serious conversations with students who are very different in terms of religious beliefs, political opinions, etc. Had fewer serious conversations with students who are very different in terms of religious beliefs, political opinions, etc. (Freshmen only) Participated less in co-curricular activities (organizations, student government, sports, etc.) Had fewer practicum, internships, clinical assignments, etc. (Seniors only) Question not asked in 2001

Enriching Educational Experiences: 2005 vs (Statistically significant differences between UTPA and other Master’s Level Institutions) Did less community service or volunteer work (Seniors only) Question not asked in 2001 Did more foreign language coursework (Freshmen only) Question not asked in 2001 Did less independent study or self- designed major (Seniors only) Question not asked in 2001 Had a less cumulative senior experience (comprehensive exam, thesis, project, etc.) Question not asked in 2001

Supportive Campus Environment Cluster Includes Questions on: Campus support for: –academic success –coping with non-academic responsibilities –thriving socially Quality of relationships with other students, faculty members, administrative personnel/offices

Supportive Campus Environment : Score Comparisons UTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNationalUTPAUT-SystemMaster’sNational

Supportive Campus Environment: Score Comparisons Freshmen Seniors

Supportive Campus Environment: 2005 vs (Statistically significant differences between UTPA and other Master’s Level Institutions) Quality of relationships with other students is significantly better - Quality of relationships with faculty is significantly better (Freshmen only) - Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices is significantly better (Seniors only) -

Compared to other Master’s level institutions our students: Participate less in physical fitness activities Participate less in activities to enhance their spirituality Spend less time relaxing or socializing (seniors only) Work more for pay off-campus More students provide care for dependents living with them More students commute to class Attend fewer campus events and activities

Compared to other Master’s level institutions UTPA has contributed more to the following educational and personal growth experiences: Acquiring a broad general education (Freshmen only) Speaking clearly and effectively Using computing and information technology Working effectively with others (Freshmen only) Voting in local, state, or national elections Learning effectively on one’s own Understanding oneself and people of other racial/ethnic backgrounds (Freshmen only) Solving complex real-world problems Developing a personal code of values and ethics (Freshmen only)

Recommendations Focus on the areas of:  Academic challenge  Student-faculty interactions (more for Seniors)  Enriching educational experiences (more for seniors)

Recommendations NSSE findings should be considered in: Strategic planning at the university, college and program levels. Identifying strengths and areas of improvement regarding student engagement at the program level. Identifying short and long term modifications that would enhance student engagement. Rewarding teachers that engage students more fully. Modifying course requirements and/or course delivery to respond to concerns identified in the NSSE results.

Questions & Discussion Contact Information: Dr. S. J. Sethi: Phone: This presentation is online at: