NSSE as a Tool for Assessment
Learning from NSSE:
An Approach to
Assessing and Improving
the First –Year
Experience
¾
¾
¾
¾
ResearchResearch-based
User Friendly
Comparative Data
Guide for improvement and
accountability efforts
Jillian Kinzie
Summer Institute on First Year Assessment
July 2003
Assertion
Advance Organizer
We all want the same
thing—an educational
experience that results in
high levels of learning and
personal development for
all students.
What kinds of evidence
about student learning and
institutional effectiveness
are compelling and useful
for improving
undergraduate education?
The Challenge
One Promising Response
There’s too much at stake to
assume students are doing
the things that lead to high
levels of learning and
personal development.
„ To
consistently
use effective
educational
practices
throughout the
institution
Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987)
„ StudentStudent-faculty contact
„ Active learning
„ Prompt feedback
„ Time on task
„ High expectations
„ Respect for diverse learning styles
„ Cooperation among students
Lessons from the Research
¾ What
matters most to desired
outcomes is what students do,
do,
not who they are
¾A
key factor for student learning
is the quality of effort students
devote to educationally
purposeful activities
Lessons from the Research
What Really Matters in College:
Student Engagement
“The research is unequivocal:
students who are actively
involved in both academic and
outout-ofof-class activities gain
more from the college
experience than those who are
not so involved.”
¾ What
matters most is what
students do, not who they are
¾A
key factor is the quality of effort
students expend
¾ Educationally
effective institutions
channel student energy toward the
right activities
Ernest T. Pascarella & Patrick T. Terenzini,
How College Affects Students
Two Components of
Student Engagement
students do -- time and
energy devoted to educationally
purposeful activities
„ What institutions do -- using
effective educational practices
to induce students to do the
right things
Evidence of
Student Engagement
„ What
„ To
what extent are students
engaged in effective
educational practices?
National Survey of
Student Engagement
(pronounced “nessie”)
Community College
Survey of Student
Engagement
(pronounced “sessie”)
College student surveys that assess
the extent to which students engage
in educational practices associated
with high levels of learning and
development
NSSE Project Scope
NSSE’s core
activities:
Institutional
Improvement
ƒ 400,000 students from 730
different schools
ƒ 58% of 44-yr undergraduate
FTE
Public
Advocacy
Documenting
Good Practice
The College Student Report
Student Behaviors
Institutional Actions &
Requirements
Reactions to College
Student Background
Information
Student
Learning &
Development
ƒ 50 states, Puerto Rico
ƒ 50+ institutional consortia
NSSE Survey
Administration
– Third Party
Administration
– During Spring
Semester
– Random Sample
of FirstFirst-year &
Senior Students
– Paper, Web or
Mixed, Version
NSSE
NSSE
www.iub.edu/~nsse
www.iub.edu/~nsse
NSSE
Institutional Report
Overview
Institutional data
„ Means & frequencies
„ 1st year students,
seniors
„ Comparisons by
Carnegie, national
„ National benchmarks
„
„
www.iub.edu/~nsse
NSSE Benchmarks
Mean
Summary
Report
First-y ear Students
Nesseville State Univ
Count
Asked questions in class or
contributed to class discussions
Never
Som etim es
Frequency
Distribution
Report
Never
Som etim es
Often
Total
3.9%
36.0%
37.4%
22.7%
100.0%
5930
14151
10021
7422
37.7%
26.7%
19.8%
3953
100.0%
33830
100.0%
163
100.0%
4371
100.0%
37524
100.0%
15.8%
1.2%
25.9%
149
944
3.8%
23.9%
870
8002
2.6%
23.7%
2
17
1.2%
10.4%
54
641
1.2%
14.7%
365
4820
38.9%
34.0%
1665
1194
42.1%
30.2%
14725
10215
43.5%
30.2%
66
79
40.2%
48.2%
1708
1968
39.1%
45.0%
14703
17629
39.2%
47.0%
162
100.0%
3952
100.0%
33812
100.0%
164
100.0%
4371
100.0%
37517
100.0%
28
98
26
11
17.2%
60.1%
16.0%
6.7%
647
2455
634
219
16.4%
62.1%
16.0%
5.5%
5805
20928
5114
1952
17.2%
61.9%
15.1%
5.8%
20
105
30
9
12.2%
64.0%
18.3%
5.5%
640
2690
738
302
14.6%
61.6%
16.9%
6.9%
5554
23113
6244
2589
14.8%
61.6%
16.7%
6.9%
163
100.0%
3955
100.0%
33799
100.0%
164
100.0%
4370
100.0%
37500
100.0%
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
1.0%
12.8%
Never
Som etim es
10
89
6.1%
54.3%
446
1856
11.3%
47.0%
3502
15959
10.4%
47.2%
20
70
12.2%
42.7%
433
2043
9.9%
46.8%
3467
16938
9.2%
45.2%
Often
Very often
52
13
31.7%
7.9%
1272
376
32.2%
9.5%
10864
3474
32.1%
10.3%
55
19
33.5%
11.6%
1257
632
28.8%
14.5%
11671
5406
31.1%
14.4%
164
100.0%
3950
100.0%
33799
100.0%
164
100.0%
4365
100.0%
37482
100.0%
7.9%
50.0%
31.1%
588
1805
1136
14.9%
45.6%
28.7%
4831
15839
9752
7.3%
35.4%
39.0%
304
1460
1445
7.0%
33.4%
33.1%
2468
13553
12963
Never
Som etim es
Often
13
82
51
18
11.0%
164
100.0%
83
Som etim es
Often
Very often
Never
Som etim es
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
429
10.8%
3958
100.0%
14.3%
46.8%
28.8%
12
58
64
3403
10.1%
30
18.3%
33825
100.0%
164
100.0%
54.3%
1161
26.6%
100.0%
6.6%
36.1%
34.6%
8525
22.7%
37509
100.0%
2113
53.4%
18347
39.6%
2029
46.5%
17002
36.0%
8.5%
4.9%
1278
385
178
32.3%
9.7%
4.5%
10963
3101
1399
32.4%
9.2%
4.1%
54
24
21
32.9%
14.6%
12.8%
1527
502
306
35.0%
11.5%
7.0%
13146
4234
3099
35.1%
11.3%
8.3%
100.0%
3954
100.0%
33810
100.0%
164
100.0%
4364
100.0%
37481
100.0%
67.1%
22.6%
2973
711
75.3%
18.0%
24690
6518
48.8%
32.3%
2792
1117
64.0%
25.6%
22203
10676
73.1%
19.3%
65
4370
50.6%
59
14
8
164
110
37
Often
Very often
80
53
45.4%
59.3%
28.5%
12
5
7.3%
3.0%
195
69
4.9%
1.7%
1815
742
5.4%
2.2%
21
10
12.8%
6.1%
298
157
6.8%
3.6%
2983
1575
8.0%
4.2%
164
100.0%
3948
100.0%
33765
100.0%
164
100.0%
4364
100.0%
37437
100.0%
33
44
43
44
20.1%
26.8%
26.2%
26.8%
775
1131
1043
1004
19.6%
28.6%
26.4%
25.4%
6605
9676
9009
8526
19.5%
28.6%
26.6%
25.2%
18
59
36
51
11.0%
36.0%
22.0%
31.1%
580
1290
1187
1317
13.3%
29.5%
27.1%
30.1%
5402
10892
10274
10953
14.4%
29.0%
27.4%
29.2%
164
100.0%
3953
100.0%
33816
100.0%
164
100.0%
4374
100.0%
37521
100.0%
Never
Som etim es
7
54
4.3%
32.9%
259
1265
6.6%
32.0%
2737
11025
8.1%
32.6%
10
40
6.1%
24.4%
210
1192
4.8%
27.3%
2027
10678
Often
Very often
59
44
36.0%
26.8%
1357
1068
34.4%
27.0%
11215
8830
33.2%
26.1%
43
71
26.2%
43.3%
1418
1553
32.4%
35.5%
12028
12764
32.1%
34.0%
164
100.0%
164
100.0%
5.4%
28.5%
100.0%
3949
100.0%
33807
100.0%
4373
100.0%
37497
Never
Som etim es
Often
9
66
61
5.5%
40.2%
37.2%
281
1785
1321
7.1%
45.1%
33.4%
2454
15113
11198
7.3%
44.7%
33.1%
9
53
65
5.5%
32.3%
39.6%
179
1682
1544
4.1%
38.5%
35.4%
1405
13828
13554
3.7%
36.9%
36.2%
Very often
28
17.1%
567
14.3%
5023
14.9%
37
22.6%
960
22.0%
8686
23.2%
164
100.0%
3954
100.0%
33788
100.0%
164
100.0%
4365
100.0%
37473
100.0%
19.6%
1059
26.8%
8215
12.9%
801
18.3%
5902
76
41
14
46.6%
25.2%
8.6%
1927
718
248
48.8%
18.2%
6.3%
16323
6685
2568
48.3%
19.8%
7.6%
59
52
31
36.2%
31.9%
19.0%
1932
1054
582
44.2%
24.1%
13.3%
15773
9679
6108
42.1%
25.8%
16.3%
163
100.0%
3952
100.0%
33791
100.0%
163
100.0%
4369
100.0%
37462
100.0%
Never
Som etim es
Often
55
75
25
33.5%
45.7%
15.2%
1826
1563
429
46.2%
39.6%
10.9%
15045
13590
3881
44.5%
40.2%
11.5%
35
80
31
21.3%
48.8%
18.9%
1383
2040
658
31.7%
46.8%
15.1%
10596
17853
6219
28.3%
47.6%
16.6%
Very often
32
9
5.5%
133
3.4%
1272
3.8%
18
11.0%
280
6.4%
2805
7.5%
164
100.0%
164
100.0%
Som etim es
Often
Very often
Total
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
Total
Never
Som etim es
Never
Som etim es
Often
Total
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
T
l
21
15.8%
100.0%
3951
100.0%
33788
100.0%
4361
100.0%
37473
16
48
67
33
9.8%
29.3%
40.9%
20.1%
343
1503
1519
584
8.7%
38.1%
38.5%
14.8%
2879
12621
13125
5137
8.5%
37.4%
38.9%
15.2%
7
39
73
44
4.3%
23.9%
44.8%
27.0%
229
1430
1926
782
5.2%
32.7%
44.1%
17.9%
1576
11810
16779
7323
4.2%
31.5%
44.8%
19.5%
100.0%
3949
100.0%
33762
100.0%
163
100.0%
4367
100.0%
37488
100.0%
8.0%
30.2%
356
1570
9.0%
39.7%
2933
13406
3.7%
45.7%
326
1679
7.5%
38.4%
2448
14101
75
25
46.3%
15.4%
1463
566
37.0%
14.3%
12456
4995
36.9%
14.8%
61
22
37.2%
13.4%
1647
716
37.7%
16.4%
14439
6477
38.5%
17.3%
162
100.0%
3955
100.0%
33790
100.0%
164
100.0%
4368
100.0%
37465
100.0%
54.6%
27.6%
17.2%
2608
931
312
66.0%
23.5%
7.9%
21408
8546
2713
40.9%
33.5%
11.6%
2303
1324
458
52.7%
30.3%
10.5%
17762
11878
4927
89
45
28
Very often
24.3%
164
13
49
Often
Very often
Total
Discussed ideas from y our readings
or classes with others outside of class
(students, fam ily m em bers,
coworkers, etc.)
Col%
1.7%
27.3%
8532
37527
16.7%
37.9%
26.8%
18.6%
100.0%
2
42
63
55
Total
Worked with faculty m em bers on
activities other than coursework
(com m ittees, orientation, student life
activities, etc.)
21.7%
100.0%
163
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
Total
Worked harder than y ou thought y ou
could to m eet an instructor's
standards or expectations
100.0%
1454
13514
14027
947
4371
730
Never
Received prom pt feedback from
faculty on y our academ ic
perform ance (written or oral)
32.6%
38.4%
37551
4.8%
36.5%
37.0%
96
1364
1658
1172
811
Total
Discussed ideas from y our readings
or classes with faculty m em bers
outside of class
Count
16.0%
Total
Talked about career plans with a
faculty m em ber or advisor
12245
14433
100.0%
208
1597
1619
18.9%
100.0%
42.3%
23.3%
18.4%
Total
Discussed grades or assignm ents with
an instructor
Col %
1.8%
25.0%
31
26
69
38
30
Total
Used e-m ail to com m unicate with an
instructor
32.9%
33.8%
4377
2.4%
36.6%
42.1%
4
60
69
164
13.1%
29.7%
31.5%
25.6%
Total
Used an electronic m edium (list-serv,
chat group, Internet, etc.) to discuss
or com plete an assignm ent
1439
1478
100.0%
3
41
6.1%
100.0%
4444
10047
10665
8674
Very often
Participated in a com m unity -based
proj ect as part of a regular course
32.3%
40.9%
164
16.6%
55.4%
21.8%
2072
33826
14.8%
28.9%
31.1%
25.2%
Never
Tutored or taught other students
(paid or voluntary )
53
67
100.0%
5617
18751
7386
6.1%
587
1141
1229
996
Total
Worked with classm ates outside of
class to prepare class assignm ents
Count
629
10244
34.4%
23.8%
33861
17.5%
56.2%
20.3%
100.0%
Count
National
Col%
2.2%
31.2%
11659
8062
100.0%
240
3957
Col%
3.0%
38.7%
Carnegie
Count
1030
13110
34.1%
21.2%
3962
692
2223
802
5.5%
14.7%
31.3%
26.4%
27.6%
Total
Worked with other students on
proj ects during class
Nesseville State Univ
Col%
3.2%
41.6%
1350
839
8.6%
65.0%
20.9%
100.0%
24
51
43
45
Total
Cam e to class without com pleting
readings or assignm ents
Seniors
National
Count
125
1648
36.0%
34.1%
100.0%
9
163
Never
Som etim es
Often
Very often
Total
Worked on a paper or proj ect that
required integrating ideas or
inform ation from various sources
Carnegie
Col %
1.8%
28.0%
59
56
14
106
34
Very often
Prepared two or m ore drafts of a
paper or assignm ent before turning it
in
164
3
46
Often
Very often
Total
Made a class presentation
1
.6%
163
100.0%
103
2.6%
3954
100.0%
8.7%
39.7%
63.4%
25.3%
8.0%
6
75
67
55
19
1101
3.3%
23
14.0%
33768
100.0%
164
100.0%
285
6.5%
4370
100.0%
6.5%
37.6%
47.4%
31.7%
13.2%
2897
7.7%
37464
100.0%
8
4.9%
247
6.3%
1828
5.4%
6
3.7%
170
3.9%
1129
46
69
41
28.0%
42.1%
25.0%
1499
1409
796
37.9%
35.7%
20.1%
12480
12317
7170
36.9%
36.4%
21.2%
51
56
51
31.1%
34.1%
31.1%
1546
1656
996
35.4%
37.9%
22.8%
12082
14745
9553
32.2%
39.3%
25.5%
164
100 0%
3951
100 0%
33795
100 0%
164
100 0%
4368
100 0%
37509
100 0%
3.0%
Level of
Academic
Challenge
Student
Faculty
Interaction
Enriching
Educational
Experiences
Active &
Collaborative
Learning
Supportive
Campus
Environment
NSSE 2001 Institutional Benchmark Report
Nesseville State University
The NSSE survey, The College Student Report, measures student engagement in many important activities that research
studies show are positively related to learning and personal development. Forty-one questions from the survey are assigned to five
clusters of similar activities and conditions to make up the national benchmarks of effective educational practice. The benchmarks
are created on 100-point scales to make it easier to compare performance within and across sectors and institutional types.
Benchmark
Report
These benchmarks are: (1) level of academic challenge, (2) active and collaborative learning, (3) student interactions with
faculty members, (4) enriching educational experiences, and (5) supportive campus environment. The NSSE benchmark analysis is
based on more than 105,000 randomly selected students at 467 four-year colleges and universities that participated in the spring of
2000 or 2001. The students represent a broad cross-section of first-year and senior students from every region of the country. The
institutions are similar in most respects to the universe of four-year schools. More detailed information about the benchmarks can
be found in the national report that was sent with this mailing and on the NSSE website at www.iub.edu/~nsse.
This report summarizes your institution’s performance in these five areas of effective educational practice. Your institution’s
benchmark scores are presented and compared to schools in your consortium, your Carnegie Classification, and the NSSE national
norms. Page 4 provides some additional information, including a standard score that represents the magnitude of the difference
between your institution's score and the respective comparison group, and page 5 presents a table of National and Carnegie
classification deciles against which you can gauge the relative performance of your institution on each of the benchmarks.
Level of Academic Challenge
Level of Academic Challenge Items:
Nesseville State
AAUDE
Doc/Res-Extensive
80
National
70
Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing,
rehearsing, and other activities related to your
academic program)
Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length
packs of course readings
Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or
more
60
Number of written papers or reports of between 5 and
19 pages
50
Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5
pages
40
Coursework emphasizes: Analyzing the basic elements
of an idea, experience or theory
Coursework emphasizes: Synthesizing and organizing
ideas, information, or experiences into new, more
complex interpretations and relationships
30
Coursework emphasizes: Making judgments about the
value of information, arguments, or methods
20
First-Year
Senior
Coursework emphasizes: Applying theories or
concepts to practical problems or in new situations
Benchmark Scores
Institution
Consortium
Nesseville State
AAUDE
57.3
57.3
54.9
56.2
First-Year
Senior
Institutional
Engagement
Index
Carnegie Classification
Doc/ResExtensive
51.4
54.6
All NSSE Institutions
National
Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an
instructor's standards or expectations
Campus environment emphasizes spending significant
amounts of time studying and on academic work
52.9
56.6
Institutional Engagement Index 2001
This report represents the degree to which your students do more or less than expected in terms of engaging in the five areas of
effective educational practice described in the NSSE 2001 Report after statistically adjusting for the types of students that
attend your school and other institutional characteristics. 1 Thus, the Institutional Engagement Index provides an alternative
way to view institutional performance.
The report answers three main questions:
1) If your actual benchmark scores were statistically adjusted for the types of students at your school and other
institutional characteristics, what would happen to your benchmark scores?
2) Is your institution doing better or worse than expected given your student and institutional make-up?
3) How does the difference between your actual and predicted benchmark scores compare to other NSSE colleges and
universities?
Nesseville State University
Actual
Predicted
Residual
Standardized
Residual
First-Year Students
Level of Academic Challenge
Active and Collaborative Learning
Student Interactions with Faculty Members
Enriching Educational Experiences
Supportive Campus Environment
57.3
40.5
32.2
62.4
59.7
54.9
38.6
34.8
64.2
57.6
2.4
1.9
-2.6
-1.9
2.1
0.8
0.6
-0.7
-0.4
0.5
Senior Students
Level of Academic Challenge
Active and Collaborative Learning
Student Interactions with Faculty Members
Enriching Educational Experiences
Supportive Campus Environment
57.1
48.1
42.3
54.2
55.7
57.2
47.1
43.5
52.2
52.6
-0.1
1.0
-1.2
1.9
3.1
0.0
0.3
-0.3
0.5
0.7
Benchmark
What have we
learned so far
from NSSE?
How do your firstfirstyear students
compare?
The first column highlights your institution’s first-year and senior students actual benchmark scores, which correspond to the
numbers reported in the Institutional Benchmark Report.2
The second column represents what your students could be predicted or expected to do across this range of important activities,
given their background characteristics and selected institutional information.3
The third column, residual, is the difference between the actual and predicted scores. A positive score indicates that students
are more engaged in the respective educational practice (and likely benefiting more) than might be expected. A negative score
indicates that students are doing less than expected in these areas of effective educational practice.
The last column is a standardized residual (SR), an estimate of the degree to which your institution exceeded or fell short of its
predicted score on each benchmark relative to all other NSSE institutions. It expresses the residual score in standard deviation
units. When your school’s actual benchmark score is equal to the predicted score both the residual score and the SR are equal
to zero. A large, positive SR indicates that your school exceeded its predicted score by more than most other schools.4
Student Engagement Quiz
Student Engagement Quiz
What percent of fullfull-time
students study two hours or
more for every hour in
class?
(a) 14% (b) 20% (c) 31% (d)
39% (e) 49%
What percent of firstfirst-year
students never discuss
ideas outside of class with a
faculty member?
(a) 14% (b) 19% (c) 30% (d)
35% (e) 42%
e. 42%
a. 14%
Student Engagement Quiz
True or false?
Seniors report more
experiences with diversity
during the current academic
year than do firstfirst-year
students.
False
Student Engagement Quiz
True or false?
Transfer students are
generally more engaged
overall than native students.
False
Senior Transfer Status and Effect Size
on NSSE Benchmarks
75
65
.09
55
.12
Transfer shock?!?
Started here
Started elsewhere
.46
.14
.26
45
35
Or transfer daze/malaise?!?
25
Level of
Academic
Challenge
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student
Interactions
with Faculty
Members
Enriching
Educational
Experiences
Supportive
Campus
Environment
Academic reputation is not
related to:
Benchmark Scores for All Students by
Undergraduate Enrollment
Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment Intervals
Level of
Academic
Challenge
65
¾ active & collaborative
learning
¾ studentstudent-faculty interaction
¾ supportive campus
environment
Active and
Collab orative
Learning
55
Student
Interactions
with Faculty
Members
Enriching
Ed ucational
Exp eriences
45
35
25
01000
10 01 1500
1501 2 00 0
20 01 250 0
2 501 30 00
3 00 1 4 00 0
40 01 - 500 1 500 0 7500
750 1 - 10 001 - 15001 - 20 00 1 - 2 500 1 1000 0 1500 0 2 00 00 250 00 highest
Sup po rtive
Campus
Environment
Enrollment Intervals
Does institutional size
matter to engagement?
Academic Challenge, Active Learning,
StudentStudent-Faculty Interaction by Enrollment
Level of Academic Challenge
Active and Collaborative Learning
Student Interactions with Faculty Members
Yes, size matters.
60
50
40
Smaller is generally better.
30
20
186
1238
1921
3060
Enrollment
6337
11343
29426
Educationally Enriching Activities
Student engagement
varies more within than
between institutions.
Who’s more engaged?
¾ Women
¾ FullFull-time students
¾ Students who live on campus
¾ Fraternity & sorority members
¾ Learning community students
¾ Students with diversity
experiences
1st Year (%)
Senior (%)
Nat’
Nat’l
Educationally Enriching Activities
Nat’
Nat’l
Community service/volunteer work
71
63
Practicum, internship, field exp.,
etc
80
72
Work on Research Project with
Faculty
27
25
Foreign language
48
42
Study abroad
37
18
Participate in learning community
30
23
Who Is Most Likely to
Experience Diversity?
More
Students of color
Less
White students
TraditionalTraditional-age
students
Older students
Women
Men
FirstFirst-year students
UpperUpper-division
students
Assessment Purposes
How has NSSE data
been used for
improvement and
accountability
efforts?
¾
¾
Accountability
Improvement
Types of Measures
How Schools and Stakeholders
are Using NSSE Results
¾ Outcomes measures
„
NSSE results point to
things institutions can
do something about –
almost immediately
„
NSSE provides a
lexicon for talking about
collegiate quality in an
understandable,
meaningful way
-- Evidence of what
students have learned or
can do
¾ Process Measures
-- Evidence of effective
educational activity by
students and institutions
Communicating Results
INTERNAL
Audiences
College and University Administrators
„ Faculty members
„ Governing Boards
„ External Authorities (accreditors
(accreditors,,
government agencies)
„ Current and prospective students
„ College advisors
„ Institutional researchers
„ Higher education scholars
„
NSSE Schools Sharing NSSE 2001 Results
President
%
90
Administrative Staff
Faculty
Department Chairs
Academic Advisors
Governing Board
Students
Other (web site, fact book, etc.)
84
72
65
49
33
33
26
Communicating Results
EXTERNAL
Using NSSE Data
NSSE Schools Sharing NSSE 2001 Results
%
Accreditation Agencies
28
Media
18
Prospective Students
17
Alumni
16
Parents
12
Other
12
Have Not Shared with External Groups
47
„
„
Discover current
levels of
engagement
(institution, major
field, year in school)
Determine if current
levels are
satisfactory
(criterion reference,
normative or peer
comparison)
„
„
„
„
Target areas for
improvement
Modify programs
and policies
accordingly
Teach students what
is required to
“succeed”
succeed”
Monitor student and
institutional
performance
Benchmarking
Two Approaches:
„ Normative - compares your students’
responses to those of students at other
colleges and universities.
„ Criterion - compares your school’s
performance against a predetermined value
or level appropriate for your students, given
your institutional mission, size, curricular
offerings, funding, and so forth.
“NSSE is a great way to stimulate
reflection and debate about what
we do more and less well, and why.
For us it’s proving an exciting and
enlivening tool for selfself-reflection
and selfself-improvement.”
- Michael McPherson,
McPherson, President,
Macalaster College
Institutional Improvement
Examples
Concern: level of active and
collaborative learning among first
year students
The University of the South used data to
inform the development of their First
Year Program and as an assessment
measure for a grant
Enrollment
Managemt
General
Assessment
Institutional
Research
Learning
Communities
1st Year
& Senior
Experience
Curriculum
&
Instruction
Institutional
Improvement
Student
Affairs
Peer
Comparisons
Faculty
Developmt
Academic
Advising
Institutional Improvement
Examples
Concern: level of student interaction
with faculty members
The University of Richmond designed
strategies to increase firstfirst-year student
involvement in research projects and
has expand opportunities for students to
serve on institutional committees
Institutional Improvement
Examples
Concern: level of active and
collaborative learning and small
seminar experiences for firstfirst-year
students
University of Michigan established a firstfirstyear seminar experience that is
intellectually stimulating, interactive, and
provides students the opportunity to
connect with a faculty member
Other Reported Uses
Media
Assessing impact of learning
communities
„ Communicating norms for firstfirst-year
students during Orientation
„ Sharing NSSE data with academic
advisors so they can help students
better manage their time and use
academic resources
„ Organizing campus symposia around
the topic of student engagement
Alumni
Parents
Prospective
Students
„
Accred.
Bodies
Focus on
“Right
Things”
State
Policy
Makers
Governing
Boards
Characteristics of Educationally
Effective Colleges
1. Get the ideas right
¾ Concentrate on effective
educational practices
Performance
Indicators
Fund
Raising
Lessons Learned:
Principles for Data-Driven
Learning-Centered Change
How have you
used NSSE data?
¾ Focus on a real problem
(e.g., persistence, raising
expectations, success in
major field courses)
Public
Accountability
„
„
„
Organizational Culture that values - High
expectations, respect for diverse talents,
emphasis on early years of study
Curriculum - Coherence in learning,
synthesizing experiences, ongoing practice
of learned skills, integrating education and
experience
Instruction - Active learning, assessment
and prompt feedback, collaboration,
adequate time on task, out-of-class contact
with faculty
Project DEEP
DEEP Selection Criteria
To discover,
document and
describe what high
performing
institutions do and
how they achieved
this level of
effectiveness.
A.Higher
A.Higher--thanthan-predicted
graduation rates
B.Higher
B.Higher--thanthan-predicted
student engagement
scores
Project DEEP
Doctoral Extensives
University of Kansas
University of Michigan
Doctoral Intensives
George Mason University
Miami University (Ohio)
University of Texas El Paso
Master’
Master’s Granting
Fayetteville State University
Gonzaga University
Longwood University
Liberal Arts
California State, Monterey Bay
Macalester College
Sweet Briar College
The Evergreen State College
University of the South
Ursinus College
Wabash College
Wheaton College (MA)
Wofford College
Baccalaureate General
Alverno College
University of Maine at Farmington
WinstonWinston-Salem State University
Active & Collaborative Learning
„ University
of Texas at El
Paso uses learning
communities and coursecoursebased service learning and
volunteerism to actively
engage its mostly commuter,
firstfirst-generation students.
Academic Challenge
„ Cal
State Monterey Bay
adopted an asset model
(contrasted with a deficit
model) to guide policy and
pedagogical practices. FirstFirstyear ProSeminars emphasize
writing. Assessment of
student learning is extensive,
and deeply imbedded in the
campus culture.
Active & Collaborative Learning
„U
of Maine at Farmington
teaches students how to “do”
active and collaborative
learning using service learning,
portfolios, webweb-enhanced
activities. The “Summer
Experience” attracts 20% of
new students to the weeklong
discussiondiscussion-oriented seminar
before fall classes.
Active & Collaborative
Learning
„ Ursinus
College’s Common
Intellectual Experience (CIE) is a
twotwo-semester course for first year
students. Common readings and
the “Uncommon Hour” provides
opportunities for students to have
a shared intellectual experience
outside the classroom that
complements class activities.
Student-Faculty Interaction
„ Elizabeth
City State
University requires firstfirst-year
students to meet with their
advisor six times a semester,
and immediately after midmidterm grade reports either to
celebrate good progress or
discuss ways to improve.
Supportive Environment
At Fayetteville State University
all firstfirst- and secondsecond-year
students are assigned to
University College, which is
designed as a transitional
bridge. “Failure is not an
option here…”
here…”
Student-Faculty Interaction
„ Longwood
University
students have the same
faculty member as their
advisor for all four years. The
assumption is that “If you are
not in your office with the
door open, people wonder if
something is wrong with
you…”
Enriching Experiences
ƒDiversity at George Mason
University is deeply rooted,
and intentionally woven into
the curriculum, especially at
New Century College. Through
the STAR Center and other
venues students are
encouraged to use technology
to enrich learning.
Characteristics of Educationally
Effective Institutions
Take a look at the NSSE
benchmark items.
How are these items reflected
in your institution?
A Challenge:
“I know what works. What I
don’
don’t know is how to get
people here to do those
things.”
things.” (College President)
2. Get grass roots buy-in
Examples
9 Ask deans about their concerns
9 Focus groups
9 Get students “engaged”
engaged” in the
improvement effort (Illinois
State, Oregon State)
9 Ask: “What surprised you?”
you?”
2. Get grass roots buy-in
¾ Leaders endorse, but don’
don’t
dictate
¾ Structures not (nearly) as
important as relationships
¾ Validate pockets of quality
Faculty Survey of Student
Engagement (FSSE)
2003 Field Test
¾ 147 schools
¾ 16,000 faculty respondents
www.iub.edu/~nsse/html/fsse
9 Faculty version of NSSE survey
FSSE
FSSE
www.iub.edu/~nsse
www.iub.edu/~nsse
FSSE
FSSE
www.iub.edu/~nsse
www.iub.edu/~nsse
FSSE
Percent responding “often” or “very often”
1st year Lower Seniors Upper
student division
division
faculty
faculty
Work with
other students
on projects
during class
Receive
prompt
feedback
59%
47%
71%
58%
54%
92%
64%
92%
www.iub.edu/~nsse
Percent responding “quite a bit” or “very much”
Coursework
emphasizes
memorizing
Coursework
emphasizes
synthesizing
Lower
Upper
1st year division Seniors division
faculty
student faculty
70%
30%
60%
21%
64%
76%
72%
86%
% Students Responding at Least “Sometimes”
and % Faculty Reporting Less than Half of their
Students
1st year
Lower
Upper
students division Seniors division
faculty
faculty
Asked
questions
in class
97%
66%
98%
50%
Came to
class
unprepared
82%
64%
84%
73%
Faculty Development:
Using NSSE to Enhance the
1st Year Experience
Which activity listed in question #1 if increased
would lead to greatest learning and development
for 1st year students?
Student Engagement Tips
ƒ
¾ http://www.assessment.swt.edu/
Ideas, Strategies,
and Approaches
to Increase Most
Valued
Benchmark?
and then “NSSE at SWT”
Where To Look
3. Think and act systemically
™ Southwest Texas State U.
™ University of Akron
™ Oregon State University
™ CC of Denver
™ Juniata College
™ Radford University
™ Truman State University
™ Indiana University
™ University of Montana
¾ Link innovations and change
efforts from different parts of the
campus (e.g., Greater Expectations,
Gen Ed reform, SOTL, NSSE,
service learning, diversity)
¾ Link different sources of data
¾ Work across units with common
improvement agendas
Building Engagement and
Attainment of Minority Students
(BEAMS)
The Effective Educational
Practices Agenda
National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE)
„ Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
(FSSE)
„ The NSSE Institute
„ Documenting Effective Educational
Practices (DEEP)
„ Building Engagement and Attainment of
Minority Students (BEAMS)
„
From Robert Smallwood, AVPAA
at SWTSU
5-year project funded by Lumina
Foundation for Education
„ AAHE & NSSE Partnership
„ Alliance for Equity in Higher Education
institutions
„ Using student engagement data to guide
change initiatives
„ Provides resources for
improvement initiatives
„
Questions & Discussion
For more information:
NSSE web site
www.iub.edu/~nsse