DATA UPDATES FACULTY PRESENTATION September 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gary Whisenand Director, Institutional Research August 26, 2011.
Advertisements

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.
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.
National Survey of Student Engagement Department of Institutional Research and Planning December 2006.
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.
Benchmarking Effective Educational Practice Community Colleges of the State University of New York April, 2005.
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.
2008 – 2014 Results Chris Willis East Stroudsburg University Office of Assessment and Accreditation Spring 2015
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.
Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.
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.
 Assessing Student Engagement.  1. Amount of time/effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities  2. How institutional.
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.
Student Engagement: 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Research and Planning Presentation to Senate November 2008.
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.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Assessing SAGES with NSSE data Office of Institutional Research September 25 th, 2007.
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)
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.
De Anza College 2009 Community College Survey of Student Engagement Presented to the Academic Senate January 10, 2011 Prepared by Mallory Newell Institutional.
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.
 NSSE Results Austin Peay State University.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Results & Recommendations Presented by: November, 2005 S. J. Sethi, Ph.D.
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
Dissertation Findings
UTRGV 2016 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
UTRGV 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
GGC and Student Engagement
Faculty In-Service Week
2013 NSSE Results.
Presentation transcript:

DATA UPDATES FACULTY PRESENTATION September 2009

CLA REVIEW

UTILIZING RESULTS If we assume: 1. The CLA addresses skills we deem important, and 2. The measurement (prompts, scoring, etc..)is reasonable (valid, reliable, etc.), and 3. The comparisons are relevant. Then: What can do with this information to improve?

2009 NSSE DATA National Survey of Student Engagement

EXTERNAL COMPARISONS Selected Peers – Regional privates N=32). Carnegie Peers – All institutions (N=108) that fit our Carnegie classification. All Peers – All NSSE participants 200 (N=640). INTERNAL COMPARISONS First-Year Seniors

Selected Peers Augsburg College Avila University Bethany College Bethel University Capella University Carleton College Central Methodist University College of Saint Mary Cornell College Culver-Stockton College Dana College Dordt College Graceland University-Lamoni Grand View University Hastings College Iowa Wesleyan College Lindenwood University Maharishi University of Management Maryville University of Saint Louis McPherson College MidAmerica Nazarene University Missouri Valley College Mount Marty College Rockhurst University Saint Ambrose University Saint Louis University Stephens College The College of Saint Scholastica Waldorf College Webster University Worldwide Westminster College William Jewell College

Benchmarks Created by NSSE. Highlight Effective Educational Practices ( i.e. related to learning outcomes, retention, graduation, etc… ). Compares Morningside with several comparison groups. Succinct.

BENCHMARK Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) Senior (Spring)

SHORTHAND * indicates Morningside differs from the comparison group (p <.05). ** indicates Morningside differs from the comparison group (p <.01). *** indicates Morningside differs from the comparison group (p <.001).

Level of Academic Challenge Preparing for class Number of assigned textbooks Number of written papers Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, info., or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods Coursework emphasizing applications of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work

Level of Academic Challenge Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) 52.3%54%53.7%-.3%55% 53% 53.7% Senior (Spring) 56.6%56.5%58.4%1.9%58.7% 57.7% 57%

Active and Collaborative Learning Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Made a class presentation Worked with other students on projects during class Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments Tutored or taught other students Participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class

Active and Collaborative Learning Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) 44.8%45.7%47.6%1.9%45.7% 44.9% 43.2%** Senior (Spring) 55.5%56.3%57.1%0.8%53.3%* 53.7%* 51%***

Student-Faculty Interaction Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside class Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance Worked with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements

Student-Faculty Interaction Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) na36%42.9%6.9%36.5%*** 37.3% ** 34.6%*** Senior (Spring) na48.8%54.4%5.6%44.6%*** 46%*** 42%***

Enriching Educational Experiences Participating in co-curricular activities Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment Community service or volunteer work Foreign language coursework & study abroad Independent study or self-designed major Culminating senior experience Serious conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity Using electronic technology to discuss or complete an assignment Campus environment encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together

Enriching Educational Experiences Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) na26.2%27.7%1.5%29.6% 27.1% 28% Senior (Spring) na46.7%51.3%4.6%43.2%*** 40.7%*** 40.8%***

Supportive Campus Environment Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially Quality of relationships with other students Quality of relationships with faculty members Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices.

Supportive Campus Environment Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) 65.2%67.2%69.5%2.3%64.8%** 63.5%*** 58.2%** Senior (Spring) 65.4%66%67.1%1.1%53.3%** 53.7%*** 51%***

TWO IMPORTANT SINGLE QUESTIONS

If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution? Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) 75%87% (35%) 91% (51%) 4%84% (44%) 80%** (40%) 84%* (44%) Senior (Spring) 82%80% (34%) 81% (38%) 1%82% (44%) 80% (42%) 82% (43%)

How Would You Evaluate Your Entire Educational Experience at M’side? Morningside College Difference Selected Peers Carnegie Peers All Peers First Year (Spring) 87%90% (29%) 93% (43%) 3% 14% 89% (41%) 84%* (35%) 87% (37%) Senior (Spring) 90%83% (31%) 89% (40%) 6% 9% 88% (45%) 86% (39%) 86% (38%)

Selected Questions Where Morningside Scored ‘Higher’ – First Year Students Prepared 2 or more drafts of a paper. *** Worked w/ students on projects during class. ** Participated in a SL like project. *** Used to communicate w/ prof. *** Discussed grades or assignments w/ prof. *** Discussed ideas outside class w/ prof. *** Received prompt feedback from prof. ~** # of written papers fewer than 5 pages. ~** Talked about career plans w/ prof. ***

Relationship w/ faculty. *** Relationship w/ administration. *** Institution provides support to succeed. ~** Participating in co-curricular activities. *** Provide support to succeed academically.~** Attending campus events. *** Writing clearly & effectively. *** Speaking clearly & effectively. *** Developing a code of values and ethics. *** Quality of academic advising. ***

Selected Questions Where Morningside Scored ‘Lower’ – First Year Students Had serious conversations w/ diff. students.*** # of papers 20+ pages. *** # of papers 5-19 pages. *** Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality. **~ Foreign language coursework. *~* Study abroad. *** Providing care for dependents living with you. ***

Example of Data Mining: FY Writing Our First-Year Students Report (in comparison to external groups) writing fewer than 20+ page papers writing fewer 5 – 15 page papers writing more 1-4 page papers writing more multiple draft papers (Does this sound like us?)

UTILIZING THE INFORMATION If we assume: 1. The NSSE addresses practices we think important, and 2. Measurement is appropriate, and 3. Comparisons are relevant. Then: What can do with this information to improve?

COMMENTS