NSSE 2008. When?Spring, 2008 Who?Freshmen and Seniors random sample How?Electronic and Snail mail follow up Respondents?30% response rate 26% freshmen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2008 National Survey of Student Engagement – SUNY Oneonta Patty Francis Steve Perry Fall 2008.
Advertisements

1 NSSE Results Indiana University Kokomo Sharon K. Calhoon Director, Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Presentation to Clerical.
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.
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.
2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat.
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.
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.
St. Petersburg College CCSSE 2011 Findings Board of Trustees Meeting.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE 2014.
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?
An Introduction: NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement.
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.
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.
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 2007 Results for Students in Graduate and Professional Studies.
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AT IU KOKOMO Administrative Council 26 September 2007.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice Summary Report Background: The Community College Survey.
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.
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.
 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.
Faculty Senate Pat Hulsebosch, Office of Academic Quality 11/17/08.
The University of Texas-Pan American
NSSE Results for Faculty
NSSE 2004 (National Survey of Student Engagement)
UTRGV 2016 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
The University of Texas-Pan American
The University of Texas-Pan American
UTRGV 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
GGC and Student Engagement
Presentation transcript:

NSSE 2008

When?Spring, 2008 Who?Freshmen and Seniors random sample How?Electronic and Snail mail follow up Respondents?30% response rate 26% freshmen and 35% seniors Mostly full time, half transfers

NSSE 2008 Background: Engagement is time and energy devoted to educationally purposeful activities BEST SINGLE PREDICTOR OF LEARNING AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education 1. Student-faculty contact (SFI) 2. Cooperation among students (SCE) 3. Active Learning (ACL) 4. Prompt feedback 5. Time on task 6. High expectations (LAC) 7. Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning (EEE)

Validity of Self-reported Data People generally respond accurately about past behavior unless questions are sensitive or make them uncomfortable If information is known to respondents If questions are phrased clearly If questions refer to recent activities If respondents take questions seriously If questions do not threaten, embarrass or violate respondents’ privacy “Halo effect” – Inflating performance, grades or personal gains and efforts

Respondents Characteristics Buffalo State College: 30% response rate 26% freshmen,35% seniors Peers: 29% response rate 27% freshmen,30% seniors Sampling error: ±2.8%

NSSE 2008 Means-weighted arithmetic average of responses on items  Gender  Enrollment status  Size

NSSE 2008 Effect size: “practical significance” of mean differences:.2 small.5 moderate.8 large

NSSE 2008 Peers Comparison Group: Bridgewater State Salem State Slippery Rock U of Pa U Mass-Boston U Nebraska – Omaha West Chester U of Pa William Paterson of NJ

LAC (Level of Academic Challenge) Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance. Fr Sr Preparing for class # assigned books # papers 20 pages or more # papers 5-19 pages # papers fewer than 5 pages Emphasize analysis Emphasize synthesizing Emphasize making judgments Emphasize applying theories/concepts Working harder than you thought Campus environment emphasizes studying/academics

ACL (Active and Collaborative Learning) Students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and asked to think about what they are learning in different settings. Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material prepares students for the messy, unscripted problems they will encounter daily during and after college. Fr Sr Asked questions in class Made a class presentation Worked with students during class Worked with classmates outside of class Tutored others Community based project in regular course Discussed ideas from class with others

SFI (Student –Faculty Interaction) Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside the classroom. As a result, their teachers become role models, mentors and guides for continuous, life-long learning. Fr Sr Discussed grades/assignments with instructor Talked about career plans with faculty/advisor Discussed ideas with faculty member Worked with faculty other than coursework Received prompt feedback from faculty Research project with faculty

EEE (Enriching Education Environment) Complementary learning opportunities enhance academic programs. Diversity experiences teach students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology facilitates collaborations between peers and instructors. Internships, community service and senior capstone courses provide opp9ortunities to integrate and apply knowledge. Fr Sr Co-curricular activities Practicum, internship, filed experience Community service/volunteer work Foreign language coursework Study abroad Independent study/self-designed major Culminating senior experience Serious conversations with students (beliefs different) Serious conversations with different ethnicity Using electronic medium for assignment Environment encourages contact Learning community

SCE (Supportive Campus Environment) Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus. Fr Sr Environment provides support to succeed Environment helps with non-academic responsibilities Environment provides support to thrive socially Quality of relationships with other students * Quality of relationships with faculty ** Quality of relationships with admin and offices *** *1=unfriendly, unsupportive, alienated to 7=friendly, supportive, sense of belonging **1=unavailable, unhelpful, unsympathetic to 7=available, helpful, sympathetic ***1=unhelpful, inconsiderate, rigid to 7=helpful, considerate, flexible

Highest Performing Areas First Year Buffalo State Peers Did a community-based project as part of a regular course16%9% Spent more than 5 hrs/week in co-curricular activities21%14% Institution substantially encourages contacts among diverse peers56%46% Institution substantially helps students cope w/non-academic matters32%26% Institution provides substantial support for social needs40%34%

Highest Performing Areas Senior Buffalo State Peers Worked harder than expected to meet instructor’s expectations66%57% Talked about career plans with faculty member or advisor49%36% Did practicum, internship, field experience64%45% Participated in community service or volunteer work61%48% Completed foreign language coursework45%33%

Lowest Performing Areas First Year Buffalo State Peers Read more than 10 assigned books or book length readings23%29% Institution emphasizes studying and academic work67%73% Asked questions/contributed to class discussions48%59% Made a class presentation24%33% Worked with other students on projects during class37%46%

Lowest Performing Areas Senior Buffalo State Peers Courses emphasized analyzing ideas, experiences or theories78%82% Read more than 10 assigned books or book length readings25%30% Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments46%51% Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment55%60% Positively rated their relationships with admin personnel and offices41%48%

Satisfaction How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at Buffalo State? Buffalo State SUNY CollegesPeers Mean Significance Level Effect Size Mean Significance Level Effect Size FY *** **-.16 SR *** ** = Excellent, 1 = Poor

Satisfaction If you could start again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending? Buffalo State SUNY CollegesPeers Mean Significance Level Effect Size Mean Significance Level Effect Size FY *** **-.18 SR ** = Excellent, 1 = Poor

THE CHALLENGE: To rank in the top 50% of engaged schools in all benchmarks of engagement.

First Year Buffalo StateNSSE 2008 Mean Significance LevelEffect Size LAC ***-.34 ACL ***-.41 SFI *-.13 EEE ***-.20 SCE ***-.42

Seniors Buffalo StateNSSE 2008 Mean Significance LevelEffect Size LAC ***-.46 ACL ***-.33 SFI ***-.37 EEE ***-.58 SCE ***-.52